TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and penalty order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act dated 21/03/2013 and 26/03/2013 relevant to Assessment Years (AYs) 2007- 08 & 2008-09 respectively. 2. The assessee has raised the following ground in its appeals:- In ITA No.1161/Ahd/2015 for AY 2007-08 The learned CIT(A) erred in law while denying exemption of Rs. 46,37,858/- u/s.10A of Income Tax Act, 1961. In ITA No.1162/Ahd/2015 for AY 2008-09 The learned CIT(A) erred in law in upholding penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. First, we deal with assessee's appeal in ITA No.1162/Ahd/2015. The solitary issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on made by the Assessing Officer on account of software expenses was a debatable issue. Therefore, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed. 6.1. The assessee also submitted that he had not filed the appeal against the quantum addition confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) to buy the peace of mind. 6.2. However, the Ld.CIT(A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the admission of the disallowance of the claim to buy the peace of mind does not absolve the assessee from the penalty to be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) also observed that the assessee had not made any specific submission against the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siddhartha Enterprises reported in 184 taxman 460 wherein it was held as under: "5. We are unable to accept the submission. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharamendra Textiles Processors' case (supra) cannot be read as laying down that in every case where particulars of income are inaccurate, penalty must follow. What has been laid down is that qualitative difference between criminal liability under section 276C and penalty under section 271(1)(c) had to be kept in mind and approach adopted to the trial of a criminal case need not be adopted while considering the levy of penalty. Even so, concept of penalty has not undergone change by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances in which he has acted in a particular manner and set out the related facts. The explanation for bona fides, at the cost of repetition, needs to be considered in a fair and objective manner and in the light of human probabilities. As long as the explanation given by the assessee is in the light of the human probabilities, there are no factual errors or inconsistencies, and it is supported by reasonable supporting evidences regarding factual elements embedded therein, if any, the bona fides should be taken as proved. The assessee's explanation regarding bona fides of the claim does not suffer from any apparent consistencies or factual errors and it is quite in tune with the human probabilities. There is no good reason to reje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....22,80,790/- only. The AO as such worked out the deduction under section 10A of the Act at Rs. 1,15,43,943/- after setting off the brought forward losses. 12. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT (A) who also confirmed the order of the AO. 13. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) assessee is in appeal before us. 14. The learned AR before us submitted that the deduction under section 10A of the Act is available before setting off the eligible loss. 15. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The solitary issue in the instant case relates to the fact whether the deduction under se....