9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e particulars of income. In the absence of such finding, the penalty order is liable to be quashed. Mere additions to the returned income would not per se tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income so as to attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding that the assessee company was guilty of concealing the particulars of income and in respect of the addition of ₹ 2,86,88,666/- levied the penalty of ₹ 1,13,45,367/-. Being aggrieved by the order of penalty, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 6th March, 2012, deleted the penalty placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., 189 Taxman 322 (SC). Being aggrieved, the Revenue is before us with the present appeal. 3. Learned Sr. DR argued that the CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the penalty as the additions had been confirmed by the CIT(A) as well as by the Tribunal and the respondent company has chosen not to pursue t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Abdul Majeed [1998] 232 ITR 50/[1997] 93 Taxman 491 (Ker) The hon'ble apex court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519/161 Taxman 218 had held vide paras 56 and 57 as follows (page 546) : "The term 'inaccurate particulars' is not defined. Furnishing of all assessment of value of the property may not by itself be furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Even if the Explanations are taken recourse to, a finding has to be arrived at having regard to clause (a) of Explanation 1 that the Assessing Officer is required to arrive at a finding that the explanation offered by an assessee in the event he offers one, was false. He must be found to have failed to prove that such explanation is not only not bon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee might have been rejected, but it would not be said that claim was not plausible or legally tenable and therefore it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the case of CIT v. Balaji Distilleries Ltd. [2013] 31 taxmann.com 55/214 Taxman 96 (Mad.) (Mag.) it has been held that when additions were confirmed not for lack of bona fides but for rejecting the explanation of the assessee the penalty cannot be levied under section 271(1)(c). 9. In the case of CIT v. International Audio Visual Co. [2007] 288 ITR 570 (Delhi) it has been held that when all facts relating to claim were disclosed, but claim was not allowed, it does not suggest that particulars of income of the assessee or concealmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
