9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt Expenses – thus, the claim of the Revenue cannot be accepted as assessee’s claims were merely incorrect which would not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars so as to make the assessee liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 453/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2014 - Shri G. C. Gupta And Shri T. R. Meena,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri J. P. Jhangid, Sr. D.R. For the Respondent : Shri Sakar Sharma, A.R. ORDER Per : Shri T.R.Meena, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), Gandhinagar, order dated 22.11.2010 for A.Y. 2006-2007. The sole ground of appeal is against deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs. 6,56 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disallowances of expenses claimed under four heads on estimate basis. The concealment of income has not been proved conclusively to any extent, in case of any of the disallowances, and additions have been confirmed by the CIT appeals on ad hoc basis, which can be treated as an estimate based on possibilities/probabilities only. The CIT appeals in the quantum proceedings and also reduced the disallowance as originally ;made on account of expenses claimed under the truck running and maintenance expenses, tanker diesel and transport expenses. The fourth disallowance made was from Shortages claimed, and the assessing officer himself had accepted 50% of the expenses claimed based on the assessee's explanation. In the penalty proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. We find no justification for our interference in the order of the CIT(A). It is a case where the additions have been made on the basis of estimated disallowance of expenses, which was partly reduced by the CIT/ITAT. No specific item of expenditure was held to be bogus or nongenuine. We find that the case of the assessee also gets support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.(supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e it is evident that Their Lordships have clearly laid down that merely an incorrect claim was made by the assessee, it would not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars so as to make the assessee liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, in such situation no penalty can be levied under section 271(1)(c). In view of the above, we respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. (supra) uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. In that year also, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition under the head of Shortage expenses, Tanker diesel expenses and Transport Expenses, which are similar to addition made in the ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
