9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l)(c) has been rebutted by the assessee and that all the facts relating to this explanation and material to the computation of total income have been duly disclosed. Under the circumstances, it is held that explanation of the appellant was bona-fide and all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of total income have been duly disclosed by it. Penalty deleted - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 198/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2016 - Shri J. S. Reddy, Accountant Member And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri P. Damkanunja, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Kumar Garg, Adv ORDER Per Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member The present appeal, filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 17,30,832/ is being withdrawn and the assessee is liable to pay tax on account of this withdrawal. 3. The AO initiated penalty u/s 271(l)(c) for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of explanation 1 to sub-section (1) of the section 271(l)(c). Later on, the AO, placing reliance on the cases Zoom Communications (P) Ltd. 327 ITR 51 (Del), Thakur V. Hari Prasad (1987) 167 ITR 603 (AP), Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 166 Taxman 65 (SC), K.P. Madhusudan 251 ITR 99 (SC) and Drapco Electric Corporation 122 ITR 341 (Guj), levied penalty u/s 271(l)(c) holding as under: There is no force in this argument of the assessee. The deduction of tax at source by any deductor under vario ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome and in the return of income filed for its sister concern M/s Modern stage services Private Ltd. ii) The CIT(A)has erred in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 27(1)(c) of ₹ 17,30,832/- on account of wrong claim of TDS without appreciating the fact that the assessee has knowingly, willfully deliberately tried to evade the tax by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in its return of income by claiming the credit of same TDS for itself and its sister concern. iii) The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 27(1 )(c) of ₹ 17,30,832/- on account of wrong claim of TDS without appreciating the fact that claiming credit of same TDS for two different assessee is patently wrong illegal and vehemently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S to the tune of ₹ 17,30,832/- and had also furnished inaccurate particulars to this extent. It was submitted that the conduct of the assessee casted a shadow of doubt/ill- intent on the part of the assessee to submit true and correct particulars. It was also argued that the assessee could not be absolved from his responsibility of returning correct income particulars and that if the explanation of assessee was to be accepted, then there will be no deterrence for the assesses. 7. The Ld. AR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has dealt the issue at length and has rightly deleted the penalty imposed. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant records. It has been held b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... putation of total income, assessee (i) does not offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be false by the AO, or (ii) offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all material facts have been disclosed then, the amount added or disallowed shall be deemed to be income in respect of which particulars are concealed. It is pertinent to note that this Explanation is restricted to a case where assessee is unable to offer an explanation or is unable to substantiate the explanation offered by him in respect of factual detail of the income. Here, in the present appeal before us, there is no difference in the returned and the assessed income. The issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
