9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 16,73,250 imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)( c ) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that the assessee has claimed excessive deduction under section 80HHC i.e., deduction claimed at Rs. 5,46,21,266 whereas deduction was allowed at Rs. 5,04,15,932 and considering the fact that the department has not accepted the ITAT s order for the assessment year 2001-02 dated 25-8-2006 on which the ld. CIT(A) has relied upon. 2. Any other ground that the appellant would raise during the course of appeal the amending, deleting, modifying or adding any other ground of appeal." A.Y. 2002-03 : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,850 against the claim of the assessee at Rs. 4,51,27,955. The net sales of the assessee of Rs. 101,11,53,037 were increased to Rs. 109,81,54,083 by including excise duty/modvat and sale of scrap to the sales. Thus section 80HHC claim was reduced on which the penalty was imposed and the said penalty has been deleted by the CIT(A) on the ground that addition which was made on account of rejection of section 80HHC claimed was deleted by ITAT according to copy of order filed before him. The department is aggrieved with such deletion and hence in appeal. 5. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have been carefully considered. It was pleaded on behalf of assessee that not only the Tribunal has deleted the additions made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnishing of inaccurate particulars alone assessee does not ipso facto become liable for penalty. Imposition of penalty is not automatic. Not only the penalty is discretionary in nature but the discretion is also required to be exercised by the Assessing Officer keeping all relevant factors in mind. Penalty proceedings are not to be initiated merely to harass the assessee. The phrases "concealment of income" and "furnishing of inaccurate particulars" are different. Both referred to deliberate act on the part of the assessee. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of supperessio veri or suggestion falsi. While considering whether the assessee has been able to discharge his burden the Assessing Officer sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
