DCIT CC7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai
In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed
ITA 2267/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05
Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:
For Appellant: Smt Shailja Rai.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)
…upplied) 6.2.42. It, therefore, follows that a bona fide claim erroneously made does not justify penalty as also held in the case of VIT v. Span Holdings Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 83 (Delhi). Further, it was so held in the case of Mewar Industries Ltd v. ITO [2009] 32 SOT 9 (Delhi) (URO) that a bona fide claim cannot be subjected to penalty for concealment under section 271 (1)(c). A similar view was M/s Anik Industires Ltd., Mumbai. taken by the Hon'ble High Court in CIT v. Pitambardas Sulichand [2005] 273 IT 271 (MP). 6.2.43. In the case of CIT v. International Audio Visual Co. [2007] 288 IT 570 (Delhi), it was held…