DCIT CEN CIR 36, MUMBAI V. M/S. NIRAJ CEMENT STRUCTURALS LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 801/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2138 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S KUMARAN
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 28

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.801/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 DCIT CEN CIR 36 R.NO.11, AAYAKAR BHAVAN,, MUMBAI-400020. / VS. M/S. NIRAJ CEMENT STRUCTURALS LTD. GROUND FLOOR, SUNDER BAUG, NIRAJ HOUSE, OPP. DEONAR DEPOT. DEONAR, MUMBAI-400088 (REVENUE ) (RESPONDENT) P.A. NO. AABCN1596J REVENUE BY SHRI S.S. KUMARAN (DR) RESPONDENT BY NONE (AR) / DATE OF HEARING : 15/09/2015 / DATE OF ORDER: 13/10/2015 / O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AG AINST THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) -41, MUMBAI {IN SHORT, CIT(A)}, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07 NIRAJ CEMENT STRUCTURALS LTD. 2 DATED 01.11.2010, DECIDED AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT AO) U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REPROD UCED BELOW: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN HOL DING THAT PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS NOT LEVIABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AS THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO C LAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4) OF THE I.T. ACT AT THE TIME OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME WAS CORRECT IN VIEW OF LEGAL POSIT ION EXISTING AT THAT POINT OF TIME WHEN FACTS OF THE CA SE POINT OUT THE CLAIM MADE WAS NOT BONAFIDE EVEN IF LEGAL P OSITION AT THE TIME OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME IS TAKEN INT O CONSIDERATION. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL) ON THE ABOVE GROUND BE SET ASID E AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. THE APPE LLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 2 . THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT FROM THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLA IMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE A.O. HAD NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A SUB-CONTRACTOR, UNDERTAKING PROJ ECTS OF ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS ON BEHALF OF TWO MAIN CONTRACTOR S I.E. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED FOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHOR ITY OF INDIA ONE PROJECT AT ORISSA AND M/S. ASHOK BUILDCOM LIMITED FOR PROJECT AT L.B.S. MARG, MUMBAI, AS PER THE AO, SINCE THE ACT DID NOT PROVIDE FOR DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF SU B-CONTRACTOR ON INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE WAS NIRAJ CEMENT STRUCTURALS LTD. 3 DISALLOWED BY HIM. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF FIL ED A REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, WITHDRAWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF ACT. SINCE THE A.O. HAD MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WERE INITIATED FO R FURNISHING INACCURATE OF INCOME. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED BY THE AO ON THE AS SESSEE. IT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE PENALTY ORDER THAT IN THE PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS, NONE HAD APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE NOR ANY WRITTEN REPLY WAS SUBMITTED, AND THEREFORE IT W AS HELD BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CASE IS FIT FOR IMPOSI TION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C), AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO LEVIED A PEN ALTY OF RS. 2,82,84,790/- I.E. 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. 2.1. THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE MATTER IN FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREIN DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION S WERE FILED, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN: THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA(4) WAS A SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPUTE/DE BATE HAVING CONTRARY VIEWS AND THE APPELLANT HAVING CONSIDERED THAT IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING THE DED UCTION CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE EITHER CONCEALED THE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME OR FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCO ME. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT V BHARAT UDYOG LTD. ( 123 ITR TTJ 689 (TMUM) IT WAS HELD THAT ASSE SSEE HAVING ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FOR DEDUCTION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECTS IS OBVIOUSLY A CONTRACT BUT THAT DOES NOT DEROGATE THE NIRAJ CEMENT STRUCTURALS LTD. 4 ASSESSEE FROM BEING A DEVELOPER AND CLAIM FOR DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 80-IA(4) CANNOT BE DENIED. THE APPELL ANT SUBMITS THAT THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80-IA WAS I NSERTED TO REMOVE THE DOUBTS. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT TH E INSERTION OF EXPLANATION PROVES THAT THERE WAS LACK OF CLARITY ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA(4) BY THE CONTRACTOR AND WHICH WAS CLARIFIED SUBSEQUENTLY WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THE APPELLA NT SUBMITS THAT IT WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF AND ON RE ADING OF THE SECTION AS ON THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN O F INCOME IT CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA. THE APPELLANT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.11.2 006 WHEREAS THE FINANCE ACT, 2007 RECEIVED THE ASSENT O F THE PRESIDENT ONLY ON 12.5.2007, THIS INCLUDED RETROSPE CTIVE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 80-IA FROM 01.04.2000. THE AMENDMENT ALSO PROVIDES THAT THIS IS CLARIFY THE PO SITION. THE AMENDMENT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY IF THER E WAS FULL CLARITY. WHEN THE MATTER LACKS CLARITY AND THE APPELLANT MAKES A POSSIBLE CLAIM, IT COULD NOT BE S AID THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME OR FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF. IF SUCH A VIEW IS TAKEN, IN ALL THE CASES WHEREIN THERE ARE TWO POSSI BLE VIEWS, AND AN ASSESSEE TAKES ONE POSSIBLE VIEW WHIC H IS NOT FINALLY UPHELD, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD BE IMPOSED. THIS COULD NEVER BE THE INTENTION OF TH E LEGISLATURE. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE NOTICE WHICH WAS ISSUE FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, ONLY INCLUDED A GENERAL QUERY REQUIRING THE APPELLANT TO JUSTIFY IT S CLAIM FOR NIRAJ CEMENT STRUCTURALS LTD. 5 DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA WITHOUT GIVING ANY SP ECIFIC REASON OR DETAILS THE APPELLANT CONSIDERING THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDME NT SUO MOTO FILED A REVISED COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOM E WITHDRAWING ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0-IA. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT EVEN WHILE COMPLETING TH E ASSESSMENT, THE ONLY REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE OF CLA IM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA(4) IS THE RETROSPECTI VE AMENDMENT TO THE SAID PROVISIONS AND RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: CIT V. HINDUSTAN ELECTRO GRAPHITES LTD. [( 2000) 24 3 ITR 48 (SC) ] DILIP N. SHROFF V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [ (2007) 291 ITR 519(SC)] K.C. BUILDERS V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX [ (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC)] CIT V. INDIAN METALS & FERRO ALLOYS LTD. [(1994) 11 7 CTR 378 (ORI.)] CIT V. AJAIB SINGH & CO. [(2002) 253 ITR 630 (PUNJ. & HAR)] CIT V. MUSSADILAL RAM BHAROSE [ (1987) 165 ITR 14 ( SC)] 2.2. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) CALLE D FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 26.5.2010, THE GIST OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS E-RETURN ON 29.11.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL AFTER CLAI MING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA AT RS. 8,40,30,860/-. THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME WAS ACCEPTED U/S. 143(1) DATED 24.12.2007 . NIRAJ CEMENT STRUCTURALS LTD. 6 SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AN D NOTICE U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) WERE ISSUED AND SERVE D ON THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS A SUB-CONTRACTOR FOR PROJECTS OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U /S. 80- IA AS PER EXPLANATION INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2007 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.2007. SUBSEQUE NTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED COMPUTATION WITHDRAWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IA. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IA AMOUNT ING TO RS. 8,40,30,860/- AND INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) FOR FURNISHING RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.2007. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISE D COMPUTATION WITHDRAWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80- IA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IA AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,40,30,860/- AND INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) FOR FU RNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PREFER ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) DAT ED 22.12.2008. DURING THE COURSE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U /S. 271 (1)(C), THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER ATTENDED NOR FURNISHED ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE / FINAL OPPORTUNITY DATED 22.12.2008 A ND 04.06.2009. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CASE WAS FIT FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS.2,82,84,790/- U/S. 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT VIDE HI S ORDER DATED 18.06.2009. NIRAJ CEMENT STRUCTURALS LTD. 7 THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 19.04.2010 BEFORE YOUR HONOUR THAT THE GENERAL MANA GER MR. SONI AGARWAL, WHO LOOKS AFTER THE TAX MATTER WA S SUFFERING FROM ACTUAL DIARRHEA AND WAS NOT IN POSIT ION TO COME AND ATTEND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. IN THAT CASE, THE REPRESENTATIVE OR THE AS SESSEE SHOULD HAVE INFORMED THIS FACT TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. BUT, THIS WAS NOT DONE AND THE REASON CITED BY IT B EFORE YOUR HONOUR IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. EVEN DURING THE REC OVERY PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INFORMED THI S FACT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGAR DING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA AND REMAINED INTENTIONALLY SILENT TILL THE SAME WAS UNEARTHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER.' 2.3. THEREAFTER, LD. CIT(A) PROVIDED COPY OF REMAND REP ORT TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE REMAND REPORT, DET AILED REJOINDER WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN, INTER ALIA, IT WAS REITERATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN O F INCOME ON 29.11.2006 I.E. MUCH BEFORE THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2007, AND RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT, IN THE CASE OF BHARAT UDYOG L TD., SUPRA. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION O F THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS HINDUST AN ELECTRO GRAPHITE LTD. 243 ITR 48, WHERE IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: NIRAJ CEMENT STRUCTURALS LTD. 8 'HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT WHERE A RETURN I S FILED THE LAW APPLICABLE WOULD BE THE LAW AS IT STOOD ON THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE WAS NOT EVEN A BONA FIDE MISTAKE AND IN FACT IT WAS NOT A CASE WHERE UNDER SOME MISTAKEN BELIEF THE ASSESSEE DID N OT DISCLOSE THE CASH COMPENSATORY SUPPORT RECEIVED BY IT. IT IS TRUE THAT INCOME BY WAY OF CASH COMPENSATORY SUPPOR T BECAME TAXABLE RETROSPECTIVELY WITH EFFECT FROM APR IL 1, 1967, BUT THAT WAS BY AN AMENDMENT OF SECTION 28 BY THE FINANCE ACT OF 1990, WHICH AMENDMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN KNOWN BEFORE THE FINANCE ACT CAME INTO FORCE. LEVY OF ADDITIONAL TAX BEARS ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS OF PENALTY. ADDITIONAL TAX WAS LEVIED AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT I N HIS RETURN SHOW THE INCOME BY WAY OF CASH COMPENSATORY SUPPORT. AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH WAS CORRECT AS PER LAW ON THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN, THE CASH COMPENSATORY SUPPORT ALSO CAME WIT HIN THE SWAY OF SECTION 28. WHEN ADDITIONAL TAX HAS THE IMPRINT OF PENALTY THE REVENUE CANNOT SAY THAT LEVY OF ADDITIONAL TAX IS AUTOMATIC UNDER SECTION 143{1A) O F THE ACT. IF ADDITIONAL TAX COULD BE LEVIED IN SUCH CIRC UMSTANCES IT WILL BE PUNISHING THE ASSESSEE FOR NO FAULT OF H IS. THAT CANNOT EVER BE THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT. IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, LEVY OF ADDITIONAL TAX TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE INCOME BY WAY OF CASH COMPENSATORY SUPP ORT WAS NOT WARRANTED. NIRAJ CEMENT STRUCTURALS LTD. 9 DECISION OF THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN CIT V. HINDUSTAN ELECTRO GRAPHITE LTD. [1998] 299 ITR 16 AFFIRMED.' 2.4 AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND JUDGMENTS RELIED UP ON BY BOTH THE SIDES, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY. IT IS OBSERVED BY US THAT DETAILED FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIV EN BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE PENALTY, AND THESE AR E IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AS WAS APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. IT IS NOTED BY US, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF TH IS CASE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.1 1.2006, WHEREAS FINANCE ACT, 2007 HAD AMENDED THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 80-LA WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.20 00. THE FINANCE ACT, 2007 RECEIVED THE ASSENT OF THE PRESID ENT OF INDIA, ONLY ON 12.5.2007, THUS APPARENTLY, THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT HAVE VISUALISED THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT IN THE LAW. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCO ME RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CA SE OF ACIT VS BHARAT UDYOG LTD 123 TTJ 689 (MUM), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT AN ASSESSEE HAVING ENTERED INTO AN AGREEM ENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY FOR DEVELOPING OF ITS PROJECT S IS OBVIOUSLY A CONTRACT THAT DOES NOT DEROGATE THAT AS SESSEE FROM BEING A DEVELOPER AND CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80LA( 4) BY THE SAID ASSESSEE, CANNOT BE DENIED. THUS, IN OUR CONSI DERED VIEW, IT CAN CERTAINLY BE SAID THAT CLAIM MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN WAS A BONAFIDE CLAIM AND B ASED UPON NIRAJ CEMENT STRUCTURALS LTD. 10 ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS, AS PER LAW PREVAILING AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN. WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF BRINGING IT S RETURN IN LINE WITH THE AMENDED LAW, AS PER THE AMENDMENT MADE IN SECTION 80IA(4), THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS REVISED COMPUTA TION OF INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WITHDRAWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IA. UNDE R THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE A.O. HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESSE H AD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY CLAIM ING DEDUCTION U/S 80-LA(4), AND THEREBY CONCEALED ITS I NCOME, AND THUS PENALTY WAS LEVIED. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IT WAS NEITHER A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME NOR THAT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASE ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS HINDUSTAN ELECTRO GRAPHITE LT D, SUPRA, BECAUSE THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 29.11.2006, BEFORE THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2007 AND APP ROVED BY THE HON'BLE PRESIDENT OF INDIA ON 12.5.2007, WIT H RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.2000. MOREOVER, ON TH E BASIS OF RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD REVISED I TS COMPUTATION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WITHDRAWN THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IA(4). FURTHE R, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN RELYING ON THE DECISI ON OF THE HON'BLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHARAT UDYOG LTD. AND PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, SUPRA. THUS, KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER OF LD CIT( A) IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CONCEAL THE PARTI CULARS OF INCOME NOR SUBMITTED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, IS UPHELD. THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4) WAS MAD E ON THE NIRAJ CEMENT STRUCTURALS LTD. 11 BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, AND ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE AMENDMENT WHICH WAS MADE BY TH E FINANCE ACT, 2007 MUCH LATER THAN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS HELD THAT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, AND THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C), THUS NO INTERFERENCE IS CAL LED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED B Y THE A.O. FOR RS. 2,82,84,790/-. THUS, ORDER OF LD CIT(A) IS UPHE LD. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 3 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA ) SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; # DATED : 13 /10/2015 CTX? P.S/. .. #$%&'(')% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. % &' / THE APPELLANT 2. ()&' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. * * ( % ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. * * / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. -. / (01 , * % 012 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / 34 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ) -% ( //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI