TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 892
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), NFAC, New Delhi [hereinafter, the 'CIT(A)']. 2. The assessee has raised following 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) h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 91,48,159/- 2. Claim under section 35(2AB) of the Act Rs. 98,94,856/- 3.1 The Assessing Officer (hereinafter, the 'AO') levied penalty @ 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 15.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d revised computation cannot be accepted. 6.4 It is apparent from above discussion that the rationale advanced by the AO for imposing penalty that the assessee 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 3CL issued by the DSIR. Since the said Form was not issued by the DSIR to the assessee before filing of the ITR under section 139(1) of the Act; therefore, the assessee claimed deduction under 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 se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egard. It would, therefore, show that the assessee has disclosed all the relevant facts and materials in its ITR as well as before the authorities below on merit. It is not a case of the AO that the assessee has made false 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 sec....