BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) WD 1(1), MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1.

1. PENALTY UNDFR SECT1ON 27l(l)(C) OF THE ACT Rs,1,61,28,828/-: 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in A.Y. 2009-10 upholding the penalty of Ks. 1,61,28,828/- levied by the learned Assessing Officer under Section 27l(l)(c) of the Act, 1.2 The learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the submissions made and explanation offered by the appellant in respect of the non-applicability of the Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act in the case of the appellant, 13 The learned CIT (A) erred on the facts and in law in confirming the levied by the assessing officer under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act which was. initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the penalty was levied for concealment of income. It is submitted that the appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income and hence the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) of the Act are not attracted on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 1.4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the penalty levied under section 271 (1} (c) of the Act which was barred by limitation. 1

6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act for the issues which are debatable. The appellant prays your honour to kindly cancel/delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the same is unwarranted, unreasonable and unjustified.” The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of 3. income on 29.09.2009 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.Nil/- after claiming exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2009-10. The assessment order u/s 143(3)(ii) of the Act was passed on 30.12.2011 assessing the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.4,77,68,350/-. The claim of the assessee was denied u/s 11 of the Act as the object of the assessee was hit by the provision of Section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Consequently, registration u/s 12A of the Act was withdrawn by the DIT(E), Mumbai. The penalty proceeding was initiated. Notice was given to the assessee and after the reply of ITA. No.1356/M/2016 A.Y. 2009-10