SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the revenue.
(2.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act') against the judgment and order dated 6.9.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'A: Lucknow in I.T.A. No. 114/Lkw/2012. I.T.A. No. 114/Lkw/2012 was filed by the assessee against the order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)?II, Kanpur [hereinafter referred to as, 'CIT(A)'] under Section 250 of the Act. The assessment year involved in the present appeal is 2007- 08.
(3.) The following questions of law have been framed in the memorandum of appeal for decision by this Court:- "i. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the ITAT was correct to confirm the penalty of Rs.21,17,500/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2007-08? ii. Whether the ITAT right in law holding that the appellant made incorrect claim which tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to attract the penalty under section 271(1) (c) of Act applying the decision of CIT vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del) contrary to decision of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and CIT vs. Rubber Udyog Vikas Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 588? iii. Whether the ITAT while confirming the penalty rightly did not consider that while preparing the income tax return in not adding income tax paid amount to Rs.12,24,000/- and statutory provisions amounting to Rs.52,24,042/- made as required under U.P. Cooperative Samiti Limited, where not added back in advertently being intentional bonafide and clerical mistake due to the ignorance of insertion of sub section (4) of section 80P of the Act by Finance Act, 2006? iv. Whether the appellant bank having claim the amounts of Rs.12,24,000/- and Rs.52,24,042/- as the transactions having disclosed in the return, on the basis of the accountants prepared by the bank staff in the format prescribed for cooperative banks, under the control of RBI / NABARD without any professional advice, the penalty under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act was sustainable? v. Whether the ITAT was legally correct in recording perverse finding of fact pertaining to "deliberate and intentional omission" on part of assesses in giving inaccurate particulars contrary to finding recorded by A.D. and CIT (A)?" ;