JANAKI AMMAL AYYA NADAR TRUST,SIVAKASI vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI

Upon perusal of penalty order dated 02-02-2022 as passed by Ld. AO for AY 2011-12, it could be seen that the assessee claimed deduction u/s 11 & 12 which was denied to the assessee. The same was confirmed by Tribunal. Consequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated against the assessee. The assessee submitted that rejection of claim would not amount to concealment of income. Rejecting the same, Ld. AO levied impugned penalty. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same, inter- alia, on the ground that willful concealment was not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. Similar are the facts in other years. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

The assessee, in its grounds of appeal has submitted that assessee had made full disclosure of facts forming the basis of the income computation. The revenue has disagreed with the claim of exemption. The aforesaid fact alone could not lead to imposition of penalty on the assessee. The quantum appeals are pending for adjudication before higher authorities. Considering all these grounds, we set aside the impugned orders, in all the years and restore the appeals back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass speaking order on the issue of penalty, inter-alia, by considering the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (189 Taxman 322). All the issues are kept open. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case.

4. All the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 8th August, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा34 / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद6 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे8ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :08-08-2024 DS आदेशकीHितिलिपअ%ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु@/CIT Madurai. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडEफाईल/GF