9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 2540/Del/2014 (AY 2003-04). 2. The grounds raised in 2540/Del/2014 (AY 2003-04) read as under:- (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred upholding the levy of penalty on income of Rs. 2,46,644/- by AO on the losses incurred by the appellant from garment business without substantiating the manipulation and tampering. ii) The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend modify, alter, add or forego any grounds of appeal at any time before or during the appeal. 3. The grounds raised in 2541/Del/2014 (AY 2004-05) read as under:- (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred upholding the levy of penalty on income of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. In this case, against the AO's order, in the quantum proceedings, by reason of which the assessee's income was determined at Rs. 28,13,213/- the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi and the ITAT, New Delhi, who upheld the disallowance of business loss amounting to Rs. 2,46,644/- only while deleting most of the other additions/ disallowances. As a result to the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the AO passed the order imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the assessee on 10.12.2012 was imposed of Rs. 77,693/- i.e. @100% of tax sought to be evaded i.e. Rs. 2,46,644/-. 6. Against the above Penalty Order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the Assessing Officer, assessee appealed before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities below, we find that in this case no satisfaction for concealment was recorded for penalty of in dispute. We further note the AO observed that assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c), which did not establish from the facts and circumstances of the case that how the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. Section 271(1)(c) postulates imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. In this regard, we draw my support from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR-158 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 'where there is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 in dispute and cancel the orders of the authorities below on the issue in dispute.
12. Following the consistent view as taken in assessment year 2003-04, as aforesaid, the penalty in dispute in appeals relating to assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06 also stand deleted and accordingly, the appeals relating for AYrs. 2004-05 & 2005-06 also stand allowed.
13. In the result, all the 03 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03/1/2017. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
