9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant by Sh. Ashish Tiwari, Adv Respondent by Sh. S. R. Senapti, Sr. DR ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 20/11/2015 passed by CIT(A)-9, New Delhi. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. BECAUSE the impugned order dated 20.11.2015 passed by Ld.CIT(A) suffers from complete non-application of mind, is arbitrary, unjustified and capricious in nature. 2. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the demand of penalty under section 271(l)(c) of Act without any justification and contrary to every conceivable principles of law, especially when there was no concealment of income. 3. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that assessment p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. 7. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that AO had initially accepted the deduction claimed under section 80HHC, based upon the documents submitted by the Appellant, including certificate of the Chartered Accountant and necessary assessment order was passed under section 143(1) of the Act. However the assessment was reopened after considerable delay of more than six years, which was not permitted under the law. 8. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT (A) travelled beyond the mandate of the Act and not only rejected the lawful claim of the Appellant but also imposed penalty under section 271(l)(c) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax sought to be evaded. 4. Being aggrieved by the Penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that there is no concealment of income. In fact, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHC on the bonafide belief that it is entitled to such deduction on the basis of documents, which it was entitled to do under the law. It did not conceal any income or particulars from the department. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted to the Revenue by itself would not attract penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms; (i) an item of receipt may be suppressed fraudulently; (ii) an item of expenditure may be falsely (or in an exaggerated amount) claimed, and both types attempt to reduce the taxable income and, therefore, both types amount to concealment of particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 20. We do not agree, as the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
