9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the issue as to how the ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars’ has come to be established so as to warrant the imposition of penalty. Thus, it is apparent that the penalty has been imposed as an automatic outcome of the confirmation of the quantum addition. Considering all the impugned disallowance does not invite the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 5233/Del /2014 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2017 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Raj Kumar, CA For The Respondent : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee and challenges t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was also submitted that there was no concealment on the part of the assessee and nor was it a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 2.2 However, the assessing officer proceeded to impose penalty of ₹ 3,28,716/- which, on further appeal by the assessee, was confirmed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals). Now, the assessee has approached the ITAT and has challenged the confirmation of the penalty by raising the following ground of appeal 1. That under the facts and circumstances, levy of penalty of ₹ 3,28,716/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is absolutely unsustainable in law as well as on merits. 3. The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that merely because an expenditure had been disallowed in the hands of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record. The Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26, had laid down the position of law by holding that the Assessing Officer is not bound to levy penalty automatically simply because the quantum addition has been sustained. Also, in the case of CIT v. Khoday Eswara (83 ITR 369) (SC), it is held that penalty cannot be levied solely on basis of reasons given in original order of assessment. The Hon ble Supreme Court has reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT reported in 291 ITR 519 by holding in Para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically be adopted in penalty proceedings and that the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that during penalty proceedings, there has to be a reappraisal of the very same material on the basis of which the addition was made and if further material is adduced by the assessee in the course of the penalty proceedings, it is all the more necessary that such further material should also be examined in an attempt to ascertain whether the assessee concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Thus, under penalty proceedings assessee can discharge his burden by relying on the same material on the basis of which assessment is made by contending that all necessary disclosures were made and that on the basis of material disclosed there cannot be a case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
