2020 (8) TMI 165

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on addition of wrong claim u/s 80IB of Rs. 14,61,994/- made by assessee in the return & surrendered during scrutiny proceedings. Ground No.2 The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not giving any decision on alternate submission about noticed issued by AO u/s 271(1)(c) without striking off irrelevant limb in the penalty notice confirming the penalty u/s 271(1) 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income for Asst.Year 2007-08 on 28/11/2007, declaring total income at Rs.Nil, after claiming deduction u/s 80IB(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 91,83,987/-. The assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961 on 21/12/2009 and determined total....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nfirmed penalty levied by the Ld. AO towards wrong claim of deduction u/s 80IB(4), in respect of trading profit amounting to Rs. 14,61,984/-, on the ground that when the law is very clear, in respect of eligibility for deduction, making a claim on non eligible profit u/s 80IB(4) cannot be considered as a bonafied mistake. Insofar as, deduction claimed towards DEPB/export incentives, the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted penalty levied by the Ld. AO, on the ground that excess claim of deduction arising from export incentive can be considered as bonafied mistake. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are as under:- 5.1 I have considered the rival submissions. The submissions made by the AR regarding the wrong claim arising out of inclusion of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 20,22,645/- is deleted 5. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustained penalty levied by the Ld. AO towards claim of deduction u/s 80IB(4) of the Act, in respect of trading profit, without appreciating the fact that mere making a claim, which was not substantiated cannot lead to a conclusion that the assessee has made deliberate attempt to conceal particulars of income, which warrants levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT s Reliance Petro Products Pvt.Ltd. 322 ITR 158(SC) and CIT vs Price Waterhouse Coopers 348 ITR 306 (SC). 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand strongly supported order of the Ld.CIT(A) and fu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpt made for concealment of particulars of income to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961. We, further noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petro chemicals products Pvt. Ltd.(supra) has held that making a claim, which is not substantiated cannot be considered as deliberate attempt to concealment of particulars of income, which warrants levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. A similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT vs Price Waterhouse Coopers (supra), where the assessee has made a claim on the basis of tax audit report of auditor and the same has been found to be not allowed and the Ld. AO has made additions. Under those facts, the Hon'ble Supr....