Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 1138/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)
…the case of ITO vs Budge Budge Co. Ltd. 100 ITD 387 in support of the contention that there was no proper satisfaction recorded by the AO. Further, reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Globe Sales Corporation 196 CTR 187 and the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Arctic Investment (P) Ltd. 190 Taxman 157 (Del.). To buttress the contention that the assessment and penalty proceedings are independent and distinct proceedings. It was further argued that the claim made in bonafide would not attract penalty. In support of this, reliance was pla…
