TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty imposed amount of Rs. 3,66,63,680/-. 2. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of appeal. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 17/12/2009 at a loss of Rs. 16,00,19,910/-as against returned income of nil filed on 27/10/2007. The additions made by the Assessing Officer included disallowance of research and development expenditure, disallowance of extra ordinary capital receipt, disallowance under section 14A, disallowance of depreciation on software, disallowance of depreciation on energy-saving devices, disallowance of additional depreciation, disallowance of preliminary expenses, rejection of claim under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) partly upheld the additions vide order dated 03/12/2013. In respect of additions confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer issued show cause to the assessee as why penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be levied. After considerin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adhushree Gupta Vs UOI 317 ITR 107 and CIT v Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 53 (I) ITCL 2 (Karn-HC). I have also gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v Vikas Pormoter Pvt Ltd 277 ITR 337 and the para 4 is reproduced "Having perused the judgment of the Supreme Court afore referred, we are of the opinion that the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the department is misconceived. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have repeatedly emphasised the word 'satisfaction' and the satisfaction is not to be in the mind of the assessing officer but must be reflected from the record. It is a settled rule of law that the authority performing quasijudicial or judicial function must give reasons in support of its order so as to provide in the order itself the ground which weighed with the authority concerned for passing an order adverse to the interest of the assessee. Furthermore, the provisions of section 271(l)(c) are penal. In nature thus must be strictly construed, the element of satisfaction should be apparent from the order itself. It is not for the courts to go into the mind of the authorities or trace the reasons from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty imposed amount of Rs. 2,06,77,160/- 2. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of appeal. 11. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 27/12/2010 at a loss of Rs. 21,43,98,785/- against loss of Rs. 31,52,77,634/- claimed in the return of income filed on 01/10/2008. On further appeal, certain additions/disallowances were upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The Assessing Officer after considering submission of the assessee held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the additions/disallowances of Rs. 6,89,23,860/- and levied penalty equal to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs. 2,06,77,158/-. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty observing that the Assessing Officer had initiated the penalty only for addition made under section 14A of the Act and also the explanation for making such claims were found to made under bonafide belief. Aggrieved with the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....74/-. All the grounds of appeal are related to the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) and are considered and adjudicated together. The case of the AO is that various additions were made by the AO after recording facts and the legal position and some of the additions were also confirmed by the CIT(A). The AO has given the relevant findings of the CIT(A) and found that the explanation as offered by the assessee is not acceptable, therefore considering the facts and circumstances, imposed the penalty. The appellant has submitted that the additions have been made or confirmed by the first appellate authority on the different interpretation of legal position and has already gone in appeal to ITAT. It is further submitted that the explanation has been furnished in response to penalty proceedings and the appeiiant has also stated that no findings have been made by the AO or the CIT(A) that any particulars of income or information were found to be false or inaccurate. The nature and legal position of each addition has been explained. The assessee has further submitted that the AO has initiated the penalty proceeding only in case of addition made under section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds were available with the appellant. In case of the disallowance of research & development expenses, the particulars of such expenses are given in the para 6 and the notes to account No 7 Schedule 21 annexed to Balance Sheet which has been reproduced in the assessment order. The breakup of the various expenses incurred under the head 'Research & Development' have been reproduced on the page 15 of the assessment order. Apparently these expenses are of revenue nature incurred for product development and have been incurred for the purpose of business but capitalized in the books under the head 'Intangible Assets' and claimed separately as revenue expenses in the return of income. I have gone through the submissions of the appellant and also the various decisions relied upon by the appellant. It is seen that though the appellant has made various claims of expenses including higher depreciation, it is also seen that the particulars and explanation submitted by the appellant are correct and were duly shown in the financial statements submitted during the assessment proceedings. It is a case where the claims of the appellant have not been accepted by the....