TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upholding penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) is illegal, erroneous, unjust, arbitrary, based on surmises and conjectures, against the principles of natural justice and without application of judicious mind. 4. That the submission and explanation given by the appellant and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judiciously interpreted. 5. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the ground that the Ld. AO has made computational error in determining the quantum of the amount of tax sought to be evaded in terms of explanation 4 to section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the quantum of penalty imposed of Rs. 36,26,752/- is highly excessive and arbitrary. 6. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating and considering the fact that the quantum of income sought to be evaded should be worked out on the deduction under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as claimed in the income tax return for the relevant assessment year amounting to Rs. 1,32,84,280/- as against the eligible deduction under section 80....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his order dated 15-11-2018 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed this appeal before the tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the deduction u/s 80HHC and 80IA of the Act has been claimed on the basis of the report furnished by accountants in Form No. 10CCA and 10CCB of the Income Tax rules 1962. He further submitted that assessee has furnished true and correct information and no concealment of any particular was made by the assessee. He also submitted that the assessee has not concealed any particular of income and /or furnished any inaccurate particulars of its income then no penalty can be imposed on the assessee. Ld. Counsel for assessee further submitted that assessing officer has not recorded any satisfaction then penalty cannot be imposed on the assessee. He also submitted that notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1) of the Act are vitiated since did not specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. Reliance has placed on the following decisions: 1. ITA No.6330/Mum/2012 ACIT Vs. Deepesh Yum Pajwan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the contention raised by the assessee is liable to be rejected on facts. That apart, this issue can never be a question of law in the assessee's case, as it is purely a question of fact. Apart from that, the assessee had at no earlier point of time raised the plea that on account of a defect in the notice, they were put to prejudice. All violations will not result in nullifying the orders passed by statutory authorities. If the case of the assessee is that they have been put to prejudice and principles of natural justice were violated on account of not being able to submit an effective reply, it would be a different matter. This was never the plea of the assessee either before the Assessing Officer or before the first Appellate Authority or before the Tribunal or before this Court when the Tax Case Appeals were filed and it was only after 10 years, when the appeals were listed for final hearing, this issue is sought to be raised. Thus on facts, we could safely conclude that even assuming that there was defect in the notice, it had caused no prejudice to the assessee and the assessee clearly understood what was the purport a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atter was restored to the A. O., to decide as a fresh in regards the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The assessee has not concealed any particular of income at the time of filing the return of income. 11. Secondly, in the instant case the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,64,67,882/- but the A.O has restricted the deduction u/s 80HHC for an amount of Rs. 1,61, 05,733/- and the penalty was imposed on the assessee. The assessee company completely relied upon the certificate of the computation issued by the Chartered Accountants (certificate of CA P.B page No 49 to 51) and there was no malafide intention of making wrong claims willfully or with intention to conceal any particulars or submit any inaccurate particulars. There is nothing to show that the certificate issued by the CA was not in accordance with section 80HHC(4) of the Act. Relying the certificate of CA the assessee has claimed the deduction under section 80HHC which was bona fide. In the case of Commissioner of Income -Tax XVI v. S. Dhanabal [2009]178 Taxman 242 Delhi the Hon'ble High Court held as under para 9: 9. From the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it is clear that de ....