9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71(1)(c). - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA Nos.462 And 463/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2018 - SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri S. Krishnan, Adv. And Shri V. Raja Kumar, Adv. For The Department : Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR ORDER PER R. K. PANDA, AM : The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 31.08.2017 passed by the CIT(A), Dehradun for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. In both the appeals, the assessee has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to ₹ 4,30,000/- for assessment year 2007-08 and ₹ 4,95,000/- for assessment year 2008-09 respectively. For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There was a delay of 54 days in filing of both the appeals for which the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The ld. counsel for the assessee referring to the said condonation application filed along with an affidavit submitted that the financia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment u/s 147 to tax such interest income in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 10,85,323/- on account of interest on FDRs. The Assessing Officer also made addition of ₹ 1,88,000/- on account of messing commission. 8. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Rejecting the explanation given by the assessee and relying on various decisions, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of ₹ 4,28,600/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. While doing so, he observed that the Assessing Officer had added such interest on FDRs and messing commission in the case of the assessee for assessment year 1999-2000. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal but on further appeal by the Revenue, the Jurisdictional High Court decided the issue in favour of the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99-2000 and also failed to obtain admission of its SLP on the matter, ought to also have weighed with the assessee. No doubt, there are no incorrect particulars in the amounts shown as interest on FDR and messing charges from contractor, but in seeking to claim the exemption on the same after the same had been defined by the Supreme Court to be inadmissible to it in law, the assessee would definitely in my opinion culpable for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its taxable income. The decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in Reliance Petroproducts (Supra) was delivered with regard to disallowance of claimed expenditure, which the A.O. held to be inadmissible. It stands on a somewhat different footing from an income not offered for tax. In the circumstances, I am inclined to agree with the A.O. to confirm the penalty levied by him. 11. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the original return for assessment year 2007-08 was filed on 30.10.2007 and for assessment year 2008- 09 was filed on 13.09.2008. He submitted that at the time of filing of the return, the doctrine of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The relevant observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court read as under :- 12. It was tried to be suggested that Section 14A of the Act specifically excluded the deductions in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. It was further pointed out that the dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they 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. We do not agree, as the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
