Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI K.N. CHARY
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,
This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-22, New Delhi dated 26.05.2016 pertaining to A.Y 2007-08.
The sum and substance of the grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 83,44,500/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' for short].
The roots for levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 23.12.2008 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee had returned NIL income in its return of income and the Assessing Officer disallowed prior period expenses amounting to Rs. 6,14,000/- and Rs. 2,41,76,107/- out of R & D expenses. Penalty proceedings were separately initiated for disallowance made in the assessment order.
4. During the course of penal proceedings, the assessee claimed that in so far as the R & D expenses are concerned, the expenses were disallowed as the same were considered as capital expenses and strongly contended that the claim made by the assessee was a bonafide claim. In so far as prior period expenses are concerned, it was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the liability crystallised during the year under consideration and hence the claim was bonafide.
The contention of the assessee did not find any favour with the Assessing Officer who was of the firm belief that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and accordingly levied penalty of Rs. 83,44,500/-.
The assessee agitated the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated what has been stated during the penal proceedings.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the first appellate authority qua the grievance of the revenue. We are surprised and shocked by the callous attitude of the Revenue in filing this appeal which shows no application of mind by the Assessing Officer for the simple reason that the ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee and it should have been the assessee who should have filed the appeal and not the Revenue. We are left with no choice but to dismiss this appeal as irrelevant and infructuous.
In the result the appeal of the Revenue in is dismissed.
The order is pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the rival representative on 20.07.2021.