TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. 2. Since the issues raised in both the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this consolidated order. 3. The brief facts relevant for the ground raised by the revenue and assessee are, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 8.3.2006 making various additions/disallowances and determining total loss of Rs. 65,84,52,848/- and determined the book profit at Rs. 1,89,56,60,483/-. The assessing officer along with the assessment order issued a penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) dated 8.3.2006 and duly served the same on the assessee. Subsequently, assessee filed an appeal before Ld CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT from the existing limit of Rs. 20 lacs to Rs. 50 lacs. The above facts was confirmed by the learned DR, therefore we are inclined to dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. 5. With regard to the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee, the brief facts relating to the levy of penalty are, during assessment proceedings, the assessing officer observed that assessee has purchased software with the cost of Rs. 39 lakhs and claimed the same as revenue expenditure. When the assessee was asked why the same should not be disallowed and to be treated as capital expenditure eligible for depreciation as per income tax rules. In reply, assessee confirmed that assessee has purchased computer software of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee disclosed nature of transaction in its financial statement and return of income. In this regard, he relied in the case of ACIT versus Torque pharmaceuticals private limited (2015) 173 TTJ 96 (Chandigarh tribunal). 7. On the other hand, learned DR submitted that assessee cannot take advantage that it has disclosed all the information in its return of income and it is responsibility of the assessee should disclose clearly relevant information not merely disclosing vaguely. He supported the findings of Ld CIT(A). 8. Considered the rival submissions and material on record. We notice that assessee has purchased software at the cost of Rs. 39 lakhs and claimed the same as revenue expenditure. At the time of assessment proceedings, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction claimed by the assessee was legitimate and bonafide in terms of the conflicting determination of law on the proposition in question. The categorical finding at the hands of the Tribunal in its order was that the assessee had disclosed the entire facts without having concealed any income. There was no allegation against the assessee that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. The determination of the Tribunal had not been controverted even in the grounds raised in the appeal. The assessee was guilty of neither of the two conditions. Therefore, in the absence of two pre-requisites postulated under section 271(1)(c) it was not open to the Revenue to inflict any penalty on the assessee." 9. The ld. CIT(Appeals) co....