TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(in short, "the Act") against the order dated 12.02.2018, Annexure A.3, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Benches 'B', Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") in I.T.A. No.1498/CHD/2017, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld. ITAT is right in law in holding that the claim made by the Assessee for deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 @ 100% instead of 25% for the year under consideration i.e. 8th year on account of substantial expansion to the undertaking is bonafide and does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of claim of deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Act, 1961? vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld. ITAT is right in law in holding that penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not exigible ignoring that the Assessee concealed the particulars of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by claiming the deduction at 100% instead of 25% which is allowable to him in-spite of knowing the fact that this is not allowable to him? vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld. ITAT is right in law in recording perverse findings contrary to material available on record in holding that the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not leviable ignoring that the levy of penal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondentassessee furnished photocopy of bills for purchase of machinery during the financial year 2010-11 amounting to Rs. 3,22,16,771/- which was more than 50% of total book value of Plant & Machinery before taking depreciation as on 01.04.2011. The Assessing Officer afforded adequate opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim for 100% deduction under Section 80IC of the Act for the year under consideration being 8th year. The assessee except the bills/vouchers etc did not submit anything to substantiate its claim for deduction under Section 80IC of the Act at the rate of 100% in the 8th year. The Assessing Officer after examining the record noticed that the assessee initially commenced its commercial production in July, 2005 d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal before this Court by filing appeal under Section 260A of the Act bearing No. ITA No. 253 of 2017. The Assessing Officer imposed the penalty amounting to Rs. 3,96,41,212/- upon the respondent-assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as the respondent-assessee failed to furnish any explanation with regard to concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 29.08.2017, Annexure A.5, the appeal was allowed and penalty was deleted holding that a mere claim of deduction which was not accepted or acceptable to the revenue by itself would not attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the order, the revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. Relying upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in M/s Stovekraft India's case (supra), it was recorded by the Tribunal that under the provisions of the Act, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IC of the Act on account of substantial expansion of the unit. Even otherwise, this was not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Further, it was recorded that the assessee under the bonafide belief had claimed the deduction under Section 80IC of the Act. Thus, no infirmity was found in the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal in this ....