M/s. Vichara Technology India Pvt. Ltd., E 186, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi 110 048. Vs. DCIT, Circle 17 (1), New Delhi.
June, 04th 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH `H' : NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER
(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09)
M/s. Vichara Technology India Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 17 (1),
E 186, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi.
New Delhi 110 048.
(PAN : AABCV2180N)
ASSESSEE BY : Smt. Lalita Krishnamurthy and
Smt. Vidhi Agrawal, CAs
REVENUE BY : Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR
Date of Hearing : 02.06.2015
Date of Pronouncement : 03.06.2015
PER GEORGE GEORGE K., JM :
This appeal, at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the
order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi dated
28.09.2012. The relevant assessment year is 2008-09.
2. The assessee has raised five grounds of appeal. All the grounds
relate to solitary issue whether the CIT (A) is justified in confirming the
penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
amounting to Rs.11,09,506/-.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows.
2 ITA No.4377/Del./2013
The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of
software development. For the relevant assessment year, return of income
was filed on 29.09.2008 declaring nil taxable income after claiming
deduction u/s 10B of the Act amounting to Rs.45,78,919/-. In the course
of the scrutiny assessment, deduction u/s 10B of the Act was recomputed.
The deduction was limited to Rs.36,98,354/- as against the claim of the
assessee at Rs.45,78,919/-. The Assessing Officer while recomputing the
exemption u/s 10B of the Act had excluded income from other sources
amounting to Rs.8,80,565/-. The Assessing Officer was also of the
opinion that to the extent of Rs.8,80,565/-, the assessee had concealed /
furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of
the Act needed to be initiated. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer vide
notice dated 30.12.2010 gave an opportunity to the assessee to show cause
on 14.01.2011 as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be
imposed on Rs.36,98,354/- for the wrong claim of exemption u/s 10B of
the Act. The Assessing Officer after examining the reply of the assessee
imposed a penalty of Rs.11,09,506/-. The relevant portion of the
Assessing Officer's order computing the levy of penalty reads as follows:-
"Amount on which penalty is to be imposed : Rs.36,98,354/-
Total tax sought to be evaded : Rs.11,09,506/-
100% of the tax sought to be evaded : Rs.11,09,506/-
300% of the tax sought to be evaded : Rs.33,28,518/-
3 ITA No.4377/Del./2013
In view of the above, I therefore impose penalty of
Rs.11,09,506/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded."
4. Aggrieved by the levy of penalty, assessee preferred an appeal
before the CIT (A) who vide order dated 28.09.2012 dismissed the appeal
and confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.
5. Against the order of the CIT (A), assessee is in second appeal before
6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the computation of the
penalty is wrong and, therefore, the assessee has preferred the rectification
application u/s 154 of the Act before the CIT (A) and same was dismissed
by CIT (A) and on further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide its
order dated 28.01.2014 in ITA No.4125/Del/2013 restoring the matter to
the CIT (A) for recomputing the correct amount of penalty. Ld. Counsel
for the assessee submitted that since the figure of penalty that is imposed is
not disputed, this appeal also needs to be restored to the CIT (A) for de
7. Ld. DR did not have any objection for this appeal being restored to
the CIT (A).
8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on
record. The Tribunal in ITA No.4125/Del/2013 (supra) had restored the
assessee's levy of penalty with regard to the computation to the file of the
CIT (A). Since both the parties are in agreement that this appeal also is to
4 ITA No.4377/Del./2013
be restored to the file of the CIT (A). We direct the CIT (A) to reconsider
the issue of levy of penalty as also correctness of the computation of the
same. It is ordered accordingly.
9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical
Order pronounced in open court on this 3rd day of June, 2015.
(N.K. SAINI) (GEORGE GEORGE K)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated the 3rd day of June, 2015
Copy forwarded to:
4.CIT(A)-19, New Delhi.
5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi.