TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case, in not condoning the delay in filing appeal before it. 2. The ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case, in sustaining penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 17,78,480/-. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s JR Construction Co., engaged in the business of development and construction of housing projects, filed its return of income declaring nil income after claiming deduction under section 80IB(10) amounting to Rs. 1,21,48,860/-. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntial delay of 850 days in filing the appeal. The assessee sought condonation of delay by submitting that the penalty order had been received by the accountant who subsequently left the firm without informing the partners, and the assessee came to know about the order only when recovery proceedings were initiated. 6. The CIT(Appeals) first dealt with the issue of condonation of delay. After examining the explanation, the CIT(A) held that the reasons furnished by the assessee were not genuine or satisfactory. The CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee itself admitted that the order had been received, and merely blaming an employee for non-communication does not constitute a sufficient cause. The CIT(A) held that the assessee had failed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge. No material was brought on record to demonstrate that the penalty levied by the AO was unjustified. The CIT(A) reiterated that mere raising of grounds is not sufficient and the assessee must substantiate its claim with evidence. Since the assessee failed to do so, the penalty imposed by the AO was considered justified. 9. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal on multiple grounds firstly, due to inordinate and unexplained delay, secondly, for non-prosecution, and thirdly, on failure of the assessee to substantiate its case on merits. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 17,78,480/- levied under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was confirmed. 10. The assessee is in appeal before us against t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee has taken one of the possible views, penalty is not leviable. 13. In the present case, since the assessee had succeeded before the Tribunal on the very same issue for assessment year 2004-05, it cannot be said that the claim made by the assessee was either false or lacking bona fides. The existence of conflicting judicial opinions itself demonstrates that the issue is arguable and not free from doubt. Therefore, the essential conditions for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c), namely concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, are not satisfied. 14. Coming to the issue of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals), we note that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on account of delay as well a....