9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Sunil Mathur, A.R. For The Revenue : Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER This appeal is filed by Assessee against the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2004-05 on the following grounds:- 1. The order is bad in law, as it has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) levied by the AO. 3. The appellant may be permitted to add, alter or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment under section 143(3) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 13.12.2010 dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that since the quantum appeal has been dismissed by the ITAT, he has no hesitation in dismissing the present appeal filed by the Appellant u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Against the above order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 13.12.2010, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order in gross violation of principles of natural justice, hence the action of confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) may be quashed. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below and requested that the Appeal of the Assessee may be dismissed. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantum appeal has been dismissed by the Hon ble ITAT, I have no hesitation in dismissing the present appeal filed by the appellant u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 8. After perusing the finding of the AO made in his penalty order as well as finding in impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), we are not in agreement with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), because the mere fact that an addition is confirmed in quantum proceedings cannot be conclusive of the imposition of penalty. The Hon ble Calcutta High Court in Durga Kamal Rice Mill vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal), has held that quantum proceedings are different from penalty proceedings. The Hon ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. P.K. Narayanan (1999) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely, because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature . 8.2 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedents, we are of the considered view that the assessee has not furnished in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
