9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer under S.154, whereby she has directed the allowance of deductions under S.35(2AB) and S.35(1), held that if these deductions were allowed, the assessed income would become nil, and hence the quantum of penalty imposable for the years under appeal would also become ‘nil’. Since the quantum of penalty imposable thus would be ‘nil’ in each of these years, the CIT(A) allowed the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes. No material has been brought on record to controvert the finding of the CIT(A) that if the deductions under S.35(2AB) and S.35(1) are allowed for the years under appeal, the assessable income would be nil, and consequently, the penalty imposable would also be ‘nil’. When there is no variation to the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specifically the following a) Registration with Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) b) Annual return submitted before the STPI c) Invoice copies of exports d) FIRCs from Banks etc. Assessee failed to produce the requisite details called for, and instead filed revised computation of income withdrawing deduction claimed under S.10A stating that the export sales were not realized and instead claimed relief under S.35(2AB) of the Act. The Chartered Accountant for the assessee also filed a letter dated 15.12.2010 stating that due to typographical error, claim under S.10A was made for both assessment years 2007-08 an 2008-09 and requested to allow the assessee to withdraw the said clam. Assessment was accordingly completed by de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 29.6.2011 passed under S.271(1)(c) of the Act. a) The assessee did not withdraw the 10A claim on his own. It is , only when the Department called for details of STPI registration, annual returns submitted before the STPI, invoices copies of exports, etc., as the assessee could not produce these evidences he withdrew the claim of 10A deduction. Therefore, he furnished inaccurate particulars of income which resulted in concealment. b) The fact that the assessee is not registered with STPI was known from STPI website. Further this is also confirmed by STPI vide its letter dated 24.06.2011. c) The assessee and its Auditors are well aware that the company is not registered under STPI which is a primary condition to avail 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ither en item of receipt may be suppressed fraudulently, or an item of expenditure may be falsely (or in exaggerated amount) claimed. Both types attempt to reduce the taxable income. Both types amount to concealment of the particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty may be imposed for either or both such attempts. b. CIT vs. Rakesh Suri (2011) 331 ITR 458 (All.) wherein it was held that - ... the assessee had concealed the income and disclosure was not voluntary but under compulsion being cornered by the Assessing Officer. c. LMP Precision Engg. Co. Ltd., vs. DCIT(Assessment)- (2011) 330 ITR 0093 (Guj.) wherein it was held that - The law on the subject of treating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A), in the impugned order, noted that if the assessee s claims under S.35(2AB) and S.35(1) are allowed, the returned income as well as assessed income would become nil and in that event, the amount of penalty imposable would also be nil. In that view of the matter, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. 6. Except for the amounts of claims for relief under S.10A originally claimed, and the deduction under S.35(2AB) involved -so also the amounts of the incomes returned, assessed and penalty imposedfacts are identical for the assessment year 2008-09 as well, and as such the same need not be narrated over again. 7. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A) for both the years, Revenue has preferred the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
