2018 (4) TMI 268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... allowed. The Revenue filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Pune. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue is before this Court. 2. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal, on erroneous ground dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. The scope of Section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act and explanation thereto has not been considered by the Tribunal.   3. The learned Counsel submits that there is error in the finding of the Tribunal, more particularly para 4.2 of the order, the Tribunal has observed that the assessee reversed the claim in the subsequent assessment year 2008-09 that the assessee corrected its mistake and, therefore, no penalty should be im....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act. The learned Counsel, to substantiate his contentions relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in a case of PR. Commissioner of Income Tax-21 Vs. Dr. Vandana Gupta, in Income Tax Appeal No.219/2017 dated 20.2.2018 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in a case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd., reported in (2010) 327 ITR 510. According to learned Counsel, the judgment of the Tribunal is perverse on facts and in law. 4. Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent supports the judgment of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has considered threadbare, all the facts, circumstances and the position of law. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ines/weapons. This would show that the expenditure furnished by the assessee was bona fide. It was observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal that in the assessment year 2008-09 provision of Rs. 240 lakhs has been reversed. The penalty has been levied on the ground of concealment of particulars of income. However, it has been observed by the authorities below that assesssee had clearly mentioned about the retrofitment expenses in profit and loss accounts for the year ended 31.3.2007 and the provisions for retrofitment expenses under the head, 'current liabilities' in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2007. In view of this, the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) have observed that the observation of the Assessing Office....