9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... import of plastic, papers, waste etc. In the year under consideration, he was also director to M/s Shashi International Pvt. Ltd. (SIPL), which deals in export of fabric and garments. The Ld. CIT(A) noticed that during the year consideration, the assessee had taken loans and advances to the tune of Rs. 27,90,906/- from SIPL, which is closely held company and in which the assessee is having substantial interest. The amount of loans and advances taken was therefore hit by the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act as "deemed dividend". This information was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) to the AO, resulting in reopening of the assessment. The AO assessed this amount as the income of the assessee as "deemed dividend" u/s. 2(22)(e) and initiated p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther submitted that the assessee had neither concealed any transaction nor he filed any inaccurate particulars of income. Furthermore, assessee relied upon the catena of case laws in this regard. It was further submitted that there was no concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The assessee has made proper disclosure of facts, material to computation of his income in his return. The addition was made under the deeming provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, which, the assessee was not well aware of. 4.1 Considering the above, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty and held as under:- "I have carefully considered the detailed submissions made by the assessee. I have also carefully perused the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had disclosed all the facts fully and truly, no material facts had been suppressed. There was no deliberate attempt or any malafide intention on the part of the assessee to evade payment of tax. It could have been, at best, an inadvertent error which was genuine and bona fide that such loan / advance taken from the company, which was repayable, could not constitute assessee's income. Based on the above discussion, I am of the opinion that penalty is not imposable u/s. 271(1)9c) in this case and therefore, the penalty imposed amounting to Rs. 5,84,553/- is hereby deleted." 5. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that assesee in this case has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee to evade the tax has sufficient cogency. At best it was an inadvertent error which was genuine and bonafide. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the levy of penalty in this regard. 6.2 In this regard, we place reliance upon the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 2463 of 2010. In this case vide order dated 17.3.2010 it has been held that the law laid down in the Dilip Sheroff case 291 ITR 519 (SC) as to the meaning of word 'concealment' and 'inaccurate' continues to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmender Textile case was only that part in Dilip Sheroff case where it was held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
