IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH F FF F : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI U.B.S.BEDI U.B.S.BEDI U.B.S.BEDI U.B.S.BEDI, ,, , JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO.3642/DEL/2012 3642/DEL/2012 3642/DEL/2012 3642/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2008 2008 2008 2008- -- -09 0909 09 M/S RAJ KRISHNA BUILDSTATE M/S RAJ KRISHNA BUILDSTATE M/S RAJ KRISHNA BUILDSTATE M/S RAJ KRISHNA BUILDSTATE PROJECTS (P) LTD., PROJECTS (P) LTD., PROJECTS (P) LTD., PROJECTS (P) LTD., D DD D- -- -23C, NEB SAR 23C, NEB SAR 23C, NEB SAR 23C, NEB SARAI, AI,AI, AI, FREEDOM FIGHTER COLONY, FREEDOM FIGHTER COLONY, FREEDOM FIGHTER COLONY, FREEDOM FIGHTER COLONY, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN : PAN : PAN : PAN : AACCR7631P. AACCR7631P. AACCR7631P. AACCR7631P. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -15(2), 15(2), 15(2), 15(2), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI O.P. SAPRA, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. VEENA JOSHI, CIT. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, V VV VP PP P : : : : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XVIII, NEW DELHI DATED 11 TH APRIL, 2012 FOR THE AY 2008- 09. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF ` 40,045/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL PLACED BEFORE US. THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO ` 1,29,600/-. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF TH E OPINION THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS ITA-3642/DEL/2012 2 PVT.LTD. 322 ITR 158 (SC). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME , WE CANCEL THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH OCTOBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( (( (U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 25.10.2013 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : M/S RAJ KRISHNA BUILDSTATE PROJECTS (P) LTD., M/S RAJ KRISHNA BUILDSTATE PROJECTS (P) LTD., M/S RAJ KRISHNA BUILDSTATE PROJECTS (P) LTD., M/S RAJ KRISHNA BUILDSTATE PROJECTS (P) LTD., D DD D- -- -23C, NEB SARAI, FREEDOM FIGHTER COLONY, 23C, NEB SARAI, FREEDOM FIGHTER COLONY, 23C, NEB SARAI, FREEDOM FIGHTER COLONY, 23C, NEB SARAI, FREEDOM FIGHTER COLONY, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- -- -15(2), NEW DELHI. 15(2), NEW DELHI. 15(2), NEW DELHI. 15(2), NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR