2025 (7) TMI 1662

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sen out of order of penalty dt. 23/03/2022 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi ['Ld. NFeAC' hereinafter] anent to assessment year 2009-10 ['AY' hereinafter]. 2. Tersely stated facts of the case are that; 2.1 The assessee for the year under consideration filed its return of income with its PAN 'AAGTS1962B' on 16/10/2009 declaring total income at NIL after claiming deduction u/s 80P of chapter VI-A of the Act for sum of Rs. 10,15,647/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act completed by the ITO, Ward-1, Gokak ['Ld. AO' hereinafter] on 15/12/2011 whereby claim for 80P(2) deduction was entirely denied holding the assessee to be a '....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the findings of Ld. AO from assessment order. 2.4 Saddled with the unjust penalty, the assessee came in present appeal challenging the impugned order on a solitary ground that, the Ld. NFAC erred in law in confirming the order of penalty-imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Ld. NFeAC. 3. We have heard the rival party's submissions on legal ground including the bonafied belief of the appellant while filing the return of income and subject to rule 18 of ITAT Rules, 1963 perused the material placed on records and considered the facts in the light of settled position of law and judicial precedents relied upon which are forewarned to the parties present. 4. The only dispute and the strength upon which the Revenue imposed & sustain....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 2(31) of the Act and not over deductibility, therefore the first contention of 'debatability' could hardly inspire any confidence to us. Insofar as bonafide belief is concerned, the apparent person-status is clearly visible from the PAN allotted to it as against the status claimed in its return of income. Therefore the claim of the Ld. AR that, there was a bonafide belief in claiming the status as 'co-operative society' is ispo-fact is incorrect. For the reasons appellant's twin contentions rejected at the threshold. 6. However, the validity of impugned penalty has to be vouched on the basis of assessment and its finality. And in doing so we find that, by return of income and submissions filed during the course of original assessme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t order dt. 30/06/2018. By the said order, the Ld. CIT(A) per-se reinstated the appellant's status as 'co-operative society' [on the basis of para 3 of assessment order] and thus held the appellant as eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act. Thus in quantum appeal the Ld. CIT(A) already discarded the very basis upon which the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated by the Revenue. However, turning blind eye to the former quantum adjudication, the Ld. NFeAC advanced & imposed the penalty which in first appeal confirmed by the Ld. NFAC. 9. Since, the Revenue is not appeal against the order the Ld. CIT(A) dt. 30/06/2018 passed in quantum appeal whereby the appellant was held as 'co-operative society', therefore, at least for t....