TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Instead of declaring the same as income, the same were reduced from the capital work in progress and therefore, the assessee had disclosed the full particulars of such income in its balance sheet. In fact the Assessing Officer came to know about these incomes from the particulars filed by the assessee itself therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee had concealed particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 196/Lkw/2017, C.O.No.08/Lkw/2017 - - - Dated:- 21-3-2018 - SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Revenue by Ch. Arun Kumar Singh, D.R. Assessee by Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eletion of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T ACT 1961 without appreciating that assessee company failed to offer any justified explanation in respect of the disallowances made on account of ₹ 2,65,555/- as claim of depreciation on non-factory building that should have been capitalised by the assessee company. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in allowing the appeal of the assessee in respect of deletion of penalty imposed of ₹ 22,61.489/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T ACT 1961 without appreciating that assessee willfully and deliberately concealed its income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. 5. That the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), being erroneous, unjust and bad i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cost of project and which were duly disclosed in the books of account of the assessee and were also disclosed in the balance sheet of the assessee and therefore, nothing was concealed by assessee and all the details were furnished before the Assessing Officer and therefore, relying on the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. 230 CTR 320 (SC) has rightly deleted the penalty. Learned A. R. submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. has held that merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 77,93,470/-. After considering assessee s submission and facts and materials available on record, AO found that appellant wanted to install a new paper manufacturing unit for which additional purchase of land was required from M/s UPSIDC Ltd. Due to delay in acquisition of land, delay in the expansion of assesses project took place. Assessee in order not to keep funds idle and to maximize the benefits from these idle funds, invested them in FDRs and mutual funds. The proceeds from these investments were either adjusted against share issue expenses or taken to the capital work in progress, instead of crediting them as income from other sources. In essence, assessee treated them as receipts of capital in nature. The profits arising i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 320 (SC), wherein their lordships after considering various decisions including that of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) has held that merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty under s. 271(1)(c). In the light of the categorical exposition of law laid down by the apex court as to the scope and ambit of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the above said judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not find any act on the port of the appellant so as to justify the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty imposed by the AO is hereby deleted. 5.1 We do not find any infirmity in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
