Tribunal held that,

++ assessee failed to produce any evidence that it was registered u/s 12AA(1) of the Act for these three assessment years. The claim of exemption of income u/s 11(1) is allowed only when the assessee is registered u/s 12AA(1) of the Act. In view of the no registration, the claim of exemption under section 11 is a patently bogus claim made by the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case,the CIT(A) upheld the penalty in assessment year 2003- 04. It is evident that the assessee failed to give any bonafide explanation in respect of the bogus claim made in all the three assessment years and thus the section 271(1)(C) of the Act is conspicuously attracted in the case of the assessee. For levying penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act, mensrea of having intention of evading tax is not important. What is important is whether the assessee has substantiated the explanation given and able to prove that the explanation is bonafide. If the assessee failed in doing so, it is liable to attract penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act;

++ in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HCIL KALINDEE ARSSPL, the jurisdictional High Court has held that Penalty provisions are not criminal and do not require culpable mensrea. Whether or not the assessee had acted malafidely is not the relevant question to be asked and answered.The relevant question to be asked and answered is whether the assessee has discharged the onus and satisfied the conditions mentioned in Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The High Court has further observed that Absurd or illogical interpretations cannot be pleaded and become pretence and excuses to escape penalty. Accordingly, in present case, it was decided to uphold the penalty sustained by the CIT(A). In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

(See 2019-TIOL-403-ITAT-DEL)