TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 692
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case the learned Assessing Officer and CIT Appeals erred in: 1. holding that the assessee concealed the income and/or furnished the inaccurate particulars of income attracting provision s of Sec.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and levying the penalty of Rs. 23,27,607/-. This action of the being bad in law it is submitted that the penalty of Rs. 23,27,607/- be deleted. 2. invoking the provisions of Sec.271(1)(c) and levying penalty of Rs. 28,27,607/-. The action being bad in law and not borne out by the facts it is prayed that the penalty 'be deleted. 3. not accepting and I or not considering the explanation given and submissions made by the assessee and levying penalty of Rs. 23,27,607/- U/s.271(1)(c). It prayed tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal with the grounds extracted above. 5. Before us, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the assessment order and demonstrated the fact of determining assessed income at Rs. 16,82,27,990/- as against return of income at Rs. 10,93,06,133/-. Penalty was levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in both the appeals for A.Ys.2005-06 & 2006-07 under consideration. Due to wrong claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv)(a) of the Act, Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Bringing our attention to the assessment order, qua the recording of satisfaction at the time of initiating penalty proceedings, Ld. Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d out treating the unit as a separate entity. After such treatment there is no profit to the assessee and therefore, the assessee is not entitled for any deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv)(a). Accordingly, the assessee's claim for deduction u/s.80IA is rejected. Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is initiated for making wrong claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv)(a)." 9. We also perused the penalty order dated 31.03.2009 and find the satisfaction recorded by the AO for levying the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is relevant for extraction. The said satisfaction reads as under: "4.8. In view of the facts mentioned above, I am of the considered view that the assessee has committed a default within the meaning of Explanation-1(B) to Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, merits-linked grounds are dismissed as such. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.759/PUN/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 12. Grounds raised by assessee in ITA No.759/PUN/2013 for A.Y.2006-07 reads as under: "On the facts and under the circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer and CIT Appeals erred in: 1. holding that the assessee concealed the income and l or concealed the particulars of income attracting provisions of Sec.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and levying the penalty of Rs. 1,76,29,666/-. This action being bad in law it is prayed that the penalty of Rs. 1,76,29,666/- be deleted. 2. invoking the provisions of Sec.271(1)(c) and levying penalty of Rs. 1,76,29,666/-. The action being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the AO is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the above legal deficiencies. 15. On hearing both the parties on this specific legal issue, i.e. recording of proper satisfaction by the AO. We perused the order of the AO and find the satisfaction recorded by the AO for initiating the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is relevant for extraction. Therefore, the same is ....