9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances of both the cases are similar except for the assessment years and amounts and the submissions are also common for both the appeals and therefore both the appeals can be heard together. Ld D.R did not object to the aforesaid submissions of Ld. A.R. We therefore proceed to dispose of both the appeals together for the sake of convenience and proceed with the facts in A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA No. 2649/Ahd/2013. 3. Assessee is a partnership firm stated to be engaged in the business of providing Barge services. Assessee filed its return of income for AY 2006- 07 on 27.9.2006 declaring Total loss of Rs. 6,85,630/-. Thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 27.10.2008 and the total loss was determined at Rs. 6,35,630/-. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn of income and also furnished the details in assessment and reassessment proceedings and when Assessee came to know about the non allowability of expenses, it voluntarily accepted the disallowance of interest in reassessment proceedings. He therefore submitted that Assessee had not concealed any facts which would require the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. He further placed reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs Jagran Agents (P) Ltd (2014) 52 taxmann.com 80 (Del), CIT vs Kevin Process Technologies P. Ltd. (2013) 40 taxmann.com 249 (Guj) and CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). He therefore prayed that penalty be deleted. On the other hand Id DR relied on the order of AO and ld. CIT(A). 5. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount added or disallowed in computing the total income shall be considered as the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed, for the purposes of clause (c) of Section. 271(1), and the penalty follows. On the other hand, if the assessee is able to offer an explanation, which is not found by the authorities to be false, and assessee has been able to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same have been disclosed by him, then in that case penalty shall not be imposed. 8. In the present case the assessee had disclosed the material facts before the AO. When the assessee has made a particular claim in the return of income and has also furnished all the material facts relevant thereto, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue may justify addition, but in the matter of penalty proceedings, the onus lies heavily on the Revenue to prove that the assessee had concealed its income or has filed inaccurate particulars of its income. We also find that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 158 has held as under:- "The argument of the revenue that "submitting an incorrect claim for expenditure would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income" is not correct. By no stretch of imagination can the making of an incorrect claim in law tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
