TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome Tax Act, 1961 is bad, both in the eye of law and on facts. The penalty of Rs. 2,16,516/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is, therefore, uncalled for and deserves to be deleted." 2. The Ld. A.R. filing a copy of the notice dated 30th December, 2010 under section 274 of the Income Tax Act (the Act) submitted that the Assessing Officer while issuing notice has not scored off the specific charge which was sought to be invoked by him. Accordingly in these peculiar circumstances the levy of penalty was contrary to the settled legal position as appreciated by the various Benches of the ITAT relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton. (2013) 359 ITR 565. 3. The Ld. Sr.D.R. Ms....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the statutory provisions. The sole fact that the AO was of the opinion that the expenditure cannot be allowed under section 35D by itself does not mean that the assessee has either filed inaccurate particulars of income or has concealed the particulars as all necessary facts and details relatable to the said claim were made available to the Assessing Officer. In these circumstances the reliance if any placed by the Revenue on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Zoom Communications 327 ITR 510 (Delhi) on the oft repeated plea that only a miniscule percentage of cases are picked up by the revenue it was submitted cannot be of any help. It was his submission that the assessee has no role to play on the policies of the Ministry wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elf amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars in order to levy penalty on the assessee. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). Reliance was also placed upon CIT(A) vs. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 339 (Delhi) and order dated 29/05/2015 in ITA 371/Del/2013 in the case of India Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. Vs. DCIT and order dated 10/07/2014 in ITA 953/K0L/2012 in the case of ACIT versus Khadim India Ltd. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record admittedly as per record the claim put forth by the assessee in regard to the ROC expenditure made under section 35 D was not allowed by....