Netmagic IT Services Pvt Ltd. v. ITO-9(2)(3), Mumbai
[Citation -2016-LL-1003-63]
| Citation | 2016-LL-1003-63 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Netmagic IT Services Pvt Ltd. |
| Respondent Name | ITO-9(2)(3), Mumbai |
| Court | ITAT-Mumbai |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 03/10/2016 |
| Assessment Year | 2007-08 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | quantum appeal • initiation of penalty proceedings |
| Bot Summary: | On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT has grossly erred in upholding penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 47,80,773/-. The CIT ought to have appreciated that no proper satisfactions was reached by AO at the time of initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as ground on which disallowance was made by AO was rejected by the CIT and the disallowance was upheld by the CIT on other ground on which no satisfaction was reached by the AO for initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT grossly erred in upholding levy of penalty on the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 10A without appreciating that the issue under consideration is legal and debatable and that the appellant had dome complete disclosure of all facts relevant to the claim of deduction. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee briefly narrated the facts and submitted that in the assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act, AO disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs. 1,42,03,012/- u/s 10A of the Act. It is the submission of the Ld Counsel for the assessee that since, the Tribunal allowed the quantum appeal, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is required to be deleted. After hearing the Ld Representatives of both the parties and on perusal of the cited order of the Tribunal, we find, vide para 10 of the said order, Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction u/s 10A and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Considering the same we are of the considered opinion, since the Tribunal allowed the quantum appeal, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) has no legs to stand. |