9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... findings given in the assessment though it may constitute good evidence but same is not conclusive in the penalty proceedings Further, merely because Assessee has not challenged the order of assessment levying tax and interest and has paid tax and interest that by itself will not be sufficient for the authorities either to initiate penalty proceedings or impose penalty. In the present case, we are of the view that in the absence of complete and convincing corroborative evidence, the 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. In the present case no penalty is leviable u/s 271 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act was applicable and the Assessee was liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and accordingly levied penalty of ₹ 24,17,963/-. Aggrieved by the penalty order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 20.06.2011 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of ld. CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:- 1 The learned C1T(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of ₹ 24,17,963 levied u/s. 27 (1 )(c) of the Act despite the fact that (a)proper satisfaction to initiate penalty proceedings was not arrived at by the learned AO; (b)the learned AO did not specify the charge on the appellant as to whether it h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear under reference and allowed as a deductible expenditure in the immediately succeeding assessment year 2003-04. 5.2 The Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that in the original return filed for AY 03-04 the appellant disallowed the same and the claim was revived when disallowed in AY 02-03. 4. Before us, at the outset, ld. A.R. submitted that though the Assessee has raised various grounds but the solitary issue for adjudication is with respect to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, A.O noticed that Assessee has claimed deduction for interest of ₹ 67,73,007/- paid to ONGC. He also noted that this payment was made without making provision in the books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticulars in the return of income. He further placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158. He therefore submitted that the penalty levied by the A.O be deleted. Ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of A.O and ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present case penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has been levied on the disallowance of interest paid to ONGC. Before us, ld. A.R. has submitted that the explanation with respect to the expenditure was furnished by way of a note appended below the computation of income and all the material details relevant to the claim were furnished and there was no mala fide intention beca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd has also furnished all the material facts relevant thereto, the disallowance of such claim cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that there was concealment of particulars of his income by the assessee or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. What is to be seen is whether the said claim made by the assessee was bona fide and whether all the material facts relevant thereto have been furnished and once it is so established, the assessee cannot be held liable for concealment penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act. 11. A case for levy of penalty for concealment of income has to be evaluated in terms of provisions of Explanation. 1 to Section. 271(1)(c), as per which if in relation to any addition in the assessment, the assessee offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
