TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 592
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2013-14. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 3,11,27,792/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, ignoring that the assessee had not been able to explain as to how the explain as to how the excess claim of deduction u/ s. 35(2AB) amounting to Rs. 10,07,37,194/- was made even after revising the claim of deduction in the revised Computation of Income, thereby indicating deliberate filing of inaccurate particulars of income which would have escaped the tax, and therefore explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) was applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The appellant pra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed the computation of income vide application dated 19.01.2016 and revised deduction under section 35(2AB) of Rs. 4,77,02,000/-. The revised computation was accepted by Assessing Officer. The assessee further stated that no inaccurate particulars were furnished at the time of filing return of income. The claim was made by assessee on the facts available at the time and was bonafide. 4. The reply of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee should have made his claim of deduction under section 35(2AB) after proper approval from competent authority (DSIR, New Delhi). It was only during the scrutiny assessment that assessee accepted and withdrawn the excess claim. The Assessing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isallowance before assessing officer. And the decision of Mumbai tribunal in JCIT versus Crompton Greaves Ltd in ITA No. 2676/Mumbai/ 2016 dated 31 May 2017. 7. In second alternative submissions the learned AR submits that Ahmedabad Tribunal in ACIT versus Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd (ITA No.3569 /AHD /2004) held that the amount of expenditure as approved /stated in form 3CL by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is irrelevant for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 35 (2AB ). In third the learned AR submits that the assessee made its claim on the basis of facts available at the time of filing of return and was appropriately disclosed in the return of income as well as in the accounts. Admittedly the facts pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al has rightly deleted the penalty. In support of his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of PCIT Vs Samson Perincheri (ITA No.1154 of 2014), Gujarat High Court in CIT versus Lakadhir Lalji (85 ITR 77 Gujarat). 9. In fifth alternative and without prejudice submission the learned AR submits that the view taken by assessing officer in denying the deduction under section 35(2AB) to the assessee is a possible view (though contrary to the decisions relied by assessee), still the issue is debatable issue, therefore penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable in support of his submission the learned AR relied upon the decision of Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs Harsvardhan C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s with the appropriate limbs of section 271(1) (c) and that he has not applied his mind to the facts of which reason the penalty notice was issued and held that penalty is not sustainable. The ld CIT(A) while deleting the penalty relied on the decision of Karnataka High Court in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 566) and the case law in SSA'S Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC). No contrary facts or law is brought to our notice. 11. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Samson Perinchery (supra) while following the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) held that it is necessary for the AO to record its satisfaction on the ground of which penalty has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in his office on 24.08.2016. The contents of the reply is also refereed by him in the order itself. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by ld CIT(A), which we affirm. 13. Though, the assessee has not filed cross objection to support the order of ld CIT(A) on merit, yet argued that the assessee has good case on merit and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Amoli Organics P. Ltd (supra) that mere denial of claim under section 35(2AB) would not lead to levy of penalty under section271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the facts that the submissions of the ld AR for the assessee are purely legal in nature, thus, needs consideration. We ha....