9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n dispute and allow the appeal filed by the assessee. - I.T.A. No. 6099/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2016 - SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri V.D. Aggarwal, CA For The Revenue : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the Order dated 05.9.2012 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2007-08 on the following grounds:- 1. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming penalty of ₹ 54,615/- without taking into account submissions made with documentary evidence before the AO and the copy of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and ₹ 1,02,255/- on account of freight and octroi were confirmed and addition of ₹ 1,37,92,738/- as unaccounted sale consideration was deleted. The assessee went in further appeal before the ITAT on the above disallowance and the ITAT dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In response to show cause notice u/s. 271(1)(c) dated 4.8.2011, the assessee filed a detailed reply vide letter dated 16.8.2011 through its Counsel. The assessee submitted that it has not made any concealment or furnished inaccurate particulars . Only addition has been confirmed by the CIT(A) is not lead to concealment and on this basis no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) can be attracted. Only on account of rejection made by the AO no penalty can be levied. No penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the assessee in the reply has not been discussed at all. Therefore, the amount of ₹ 54,615/- does not attract any penalty. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products 322 ITR 158 (SC) and requested that penalty in dispute may be deleted. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below and requested that the Appeal of the Assessee may be dismissed. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the orders of the authorities below. We find that during the penalty proceedings, the AO held as under:- The detailed reply of the assessee has been considered and the submission of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1puting the income of the assessee shall be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. It has been held by the courts that the revenue is not required to establish that the assessee had deliberately or with mala fide intentions furnished inaccurate particulars for the purpose of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1) of the Act Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Gurbachan Lal (250 ITR 157) where the court held that this change bad been brought about by the insertion of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of IT Act and drew support from the Supreme Court decisions in this issue in the cases of CIT (Addl.) vs. Jeevan Lal Sab (1994) 205 ITR 244 and CIT vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in Durga Kamal Rice Mill vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal), wherein, it has been held that quantum proceedings are different from penalty proceedings. We further note that the Hon ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. P.K. Narayanan (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.), has held that despite the addition being confirmed by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts justify. 9. We further find that AO observed that assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c), which did not establish that how the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. In our view, as regards the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, no information given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee will invite penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature . 10. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully follow the precedent of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR-158 (SC) (Supra), we are of the considered view that the assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income and there are no findings of the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) that the details furnished by the assessee in his return are found to be inaccurate or erroneous or false. Under these circumstances, in our view the penalty in dispute is totally unwarranted and deserve to be deleted. Accordingly, we delete the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
