TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Shri T.R. Meena, JJ. By Appellant : Shri Nimesh Yadav, Sr. D.R. By Respondent : Shri Sunil H Talati, A.R. O R D E R PER : T.R.Meena, Accountant Member This is revenue s appeal against the deletion of the penalty of Rs. 10,30,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c), arises out of order of CIT(A)-I, Baroda, order dated 31.12.2009 for assessment year 2004-05. The main grounds of appeal are as under:- "1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.10,30,000/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the additions amounting to Rs.28,43,907/-. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the penalty for concealment levie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting penalty levied on the addition of Rs.2,88,678/- u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act on account of disallowance of interest for diverting the interest bearing business fund for non business purpose of investment in shares of other companies and in the units of mutual funds. The CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that in this case, the diversion of the interest bearing business fund for non-business purpose was detected during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings. 2. The A.O. observed in penalty order that total income of the assessee in A.Y. 2004-05 was determined in assessment order of Rs. 53,23,904/- and following additions were made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR 487, (Gujarat) for penalty on estimate addition, (vii) CIT v. Arjun Prasad Ajit Kumar, 214 CTR 355, (Allahabad High Court) and (viii) CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd, 303 ITR 53, (Punjab Haryana High Court), for estimated sale and penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 4. The ld. CIT (A) at page nos. 6 and 7 of the order, has deleted the penalty of addition on account of expenditure incurred outside of books of Rs. 8,65,000/-, on the ground of double taxation in the hands of the assessee. He confirmed the penalty of addition of Rs. 5,355/- which was not contested by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) as wrong depreciation on bore well was claimed. The other addition in the assessment was long outstanding creditor of Rs. 71,860/- on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs ACIT, 98 TTJ 106 Ahd ITAT, Harigopal Singh Vs CIT, 258 ITR 85 and CIT Vs Dhillon Rice Mills, 256 ITR 447 Appeal effect to the order of Hon. ITAT not yet given by AO 2 Penalty levied on unexplained expenditure of Rs. 865000/- 2 3(a) 6 7 6 6.3 6 8 11 15 In quantum-Hon. ITAT deleted the addition. Pl. See para 13 of ITAT Order 3 Penalty for addition u/s41(1) of Rs.71860/- 3 3(b) 7 8 8 8.4 8 9 16 18 In quantum- Hon. ITAT restored this issue to file of AO. Mere disallowance in Assessment proceedings does not ipso facto leads to levy of penalty. No inaccurate particulars are filled there is mere disallowance U/s 41(1) rejecting e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
