TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 892
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing grounds of appeal: - "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the impugned penalty order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s 270A of the Act is illegal, bad in law, time barred and without jurisdiction. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the Initiation of the proceeding U/s 270A is illegal and bad in law and thus penalty order requires to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of Law the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the impugned penalty order passed is without considering the reply ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... @ 200% on the above disallowances aggregating to Rs. 1,90,43,015/-(Rs. 91,48,159/- + Rs. 98,94,856/-) under section 270A of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who gave part relief. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied on the disallowance of Education Cess and upheld the penalty levied on the disallowance of claim of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act as under: - "6.3 in the light of the observation of the AO in assessment order and the submission of the appellant, the issue is considered. The appellant company filed its return of income on 15.02.2021 for AY 2020-21 with claim of Rs. 39,80,28,741/- as deduction u/s 35(2AB) as per auditor's certificate. After the issuance of Form 3CL by DSIR on 13.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee has not filed revised return suo moto and the revised computation was filed only after being specifically asked about deduction claimed u/s 35(2AB), is justified. Further, the observation of the AO that the claim of deduction would have gone unnoticed if the case would not have been selected for scrutiny, is correct. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 270A on the reduction in claim of deduction claimed u/s 35(2AB) is upheld." 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter, the 'AR'), drawing our attention to page 6 of the assessment Order, submitted that the penalty proceeding under section 270A r.w.s. 274 of the Act was initiated for charges of 'under- reporting' and 'misreporting' of income. However, the AO, as eviden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 35(2AB) of the Act as per the audited books of accounts. The Ld. AR further submitted that in view of the Circular 08/2021 dated 30.05.2021, the belated ITR of AY 2020-21, under section 139(4) of the Act, can be filed on or before 31st May, 2021. However, the CBDT did not extend the date of filing revised ITR of AY 2020-21. Thus, the time limit for filing revised ITR provided under section 139(5) of the Act for AY 2020-21 expired on 31.03.2021, even before filing the ITR under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the said ITR filed under section 139(1) of the Act could not be revised online on the Income Tax Portal after receipt of Form 3CL. 4.2 The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee, suo moto, vide letter dated 22.11.2021 filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e claim or suppressed the facts relating to the above claims of the expenditure. Since the assessee has disclosed all the facts before the authorities below, the disallowances under section 35(2AB) of the Act would not par-se lead to an inference that the assessee has under reported its income. On the disallowance under section 35(2AB) of the Act, imposition of penalty is not automatic. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) held that "A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, suggest that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of particulars of the income of the assessee. For penalty purposes, we do not see much difference in interpretation under s....