9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iculars of income and that certain disallowance/addition could legally be made in the assessment proceedings on the preponderance of probabilities but no penalty could be imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the preponderance of probabilities and Revenue has to prove that the claim of expenses by the assessee was not genuine or was inflated or the non-inclusion of income was to reduce its tax liability. Considering the aforesaid facts and peculiar facts of the case, and considering the fact that the amount has been offered to tax in subsequent assessment years and the assessee being a Government Corporation, we are of the view that in the present case no case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has been made out. We thus direct th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d excess claim of expenditure and was therefore liable for penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and, accordingly, levied penalty of ₹ 1,60,93,748/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee carried the matter before the ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the penalty levied by the AO vide order dated 08/02/0213. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised following grounds:- Your appellant being aggrieved by the Order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VIII, Ahmedabad in appeal against order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act presents this appeal against the same on the following amongst other grounds. 1. The learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but however, subsequently, when the credit notes were received in F.Y. 2006-07, the amount was included in the income in FY 2006-07 relevant to AY 2007-08. He further submitted that the non-accounting of discount in the year under consideration was not on account of any malafide intention more so, when the assessee is a Government Corporation and has brought forward losses and that assessee would not gain anything financially by not including the discount in the year under consideration. In support of his contention, that the aforesaid discount has been accounted for in subsequent year, he placed on record the relevant evidences. He further submitted that the assessee has neither furnished any inaccurate particulars of income nor has concea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well settled that the parameters of judging the justification for addition made in the assessment case of the asssessee is different from the penalty imposed on account of concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars of income and that certain disallowance/addition could legally be made in the assessment proceedings on the preponderance of probabilities but no penalty could be imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the preponderance of probabilities and Revenue has to prove that the claim of expenses by the assessee was not genuine or was inflated or the non-inclusion of income was to reduce its tax liability. Considering the aforesaid facts and peculiar facts of the case, and considering the fact that the amount has been offered t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
