9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee nor filed any application for adjournment of the case. Therefore, we decide the appeal ex-parte, qua the assessee, on merits after hearing the learned D.R. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a company. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee took loans from M/s Mashreque Bank. The assessee entered into an agreement with the lending Bank whereby it had allowed the bank to occupy its office premises and to conduct its business for some time against the payment of rent. The AO further observed that the Profit and Loss Account shows only one credit entries, being income from operation ₹ 26,85,000/- which was nothing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , whereas in the assessment, the AO has treated the rental income under the head income from house property. It is settled principle that if the addition is made due to difference of opinion, no penalty can be levied as there is no new facts brought on record by the AO which the assessee has concealed. The assessee after relying on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Khoday Eswarsa and Sons (1972) 83 ITR 569 (SC) submitted that the penalty proceedings be dropped. The AO after considering the assessee s submissions and keeping in view the ratio of the certain decisions in CIT V/s Lal Chand Tirath Ram (1997) 225 ITR 675 (P H) and CIT V/s Sreenivasa Pai (2000) 242 ITR 29 (Ker) held that the provisions of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclosed the complete particulars of its income or no such income was shown by the assessee. 8. In ITO vs. Roborant Investment (I) Ltd.(2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mum) the Tribunal after considering various decisions including the judgment in K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99(SC) while observing that the aforesaid judgment, in our view, supports the case of the assessee more than the case of the Department has held vide para -10 of the order dated 14.12.05 as under :- 10. In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that mere rejection of a legal claim of the assessee for taxability of income under a particular head of income is not by itself sufficient to warrant imposition of penalty. Tax matters are highly complex and hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9(SC) and Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277(SC) have observed and held (page 158 headnotes) as under : A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word particulars used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
