DY. CIT Vs. RAHOUL SIEMSSEN ENGG. (P) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on a solitary ground that he has erred in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 1,58,544 on the basis that no concealment was involved.

(2.) I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record.

(3.) ON careful perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, I find that the assessed has claimed deduction of interest payment made to the department under sections 217, 201 (1A) in assessment year 1987 -88 and under sections 220(2), 234B, 201(1A) and 220(3) in assessment year 19909 1, but the same was disallowed by the assessed company being not deductible. The matter went to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) re -examined the issue and noticed that the assessed had debited this interest payment from taxable income, hence it cannot be said under any stretch of imagination that at any moment it had concealed those figures. A claim can be preferred, but it can be admitted or rejected by the assessing officer. He accordingly deleted the penalty.