9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are of the view that no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), hence, we uphold the same. - Decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee made a statement that the addition has been deleted by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, therefore, the penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He requested that the Appeal filed by the Revenue may be dismissed. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a copy of the judgment dated 25.4.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in ITA No. 485/2012 in the case of Radials International vs. ACIT, in the quantum appeal of assessee's own case wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:- "This Court is thus of the opinion that the Ld. ITAT erred in holding the transactions to be income from business and profession. The order of the ITAT is consequently set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rely because the quantum addition has been confirmed by the High Authority it does not necessarily mean that penalty is also leviable u/s. 271(1)© of the I.T. Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in 306 ITR 277 wherein it has been held that:- "Merely because the addition is confirmed does not ipso facto attract the penalty provision. In the penalty proceedings, the whole matter has to be seen in a different perspective irrespective of the fact that the addition has been confirmed by Higher Authorities." 5.11 In the entirety of the facts and circumstances and for the cumulative reasons stated above, I am of the considered opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed by Higher Authorities." 9. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedents, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the disclosures made by the assessee in this regard were bona fide and were not false or fanciful. We find that Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee did not file inaccurate particulars of income in claiming deduction of the aforesaid amount. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), hence, we uphold the same. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
