9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty on the respondent for not furnishing appropriate and accurate particulars of income. 2. Relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal preferred by the revenue are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the A.Y.2005-2006 declaring net loss of Rs. 13,48,849/- which was later finally settled at Rs. 6,17,283/-. The assessee company had taken a loan in the form of Cash Credit Limit from State Bank of India (SBI) of Rs. 1,52,23,892/- and had claimed expenditure on account of interest paid on this loan. Later, He (assessee) entered into one time settlement with the SBI. The Bank waived a total sum of Rs. 2,54,42,837/- including principal as well as interest on it. He furnished this information to the IT department. His ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en was on the assessee to furnish the requisite information and to provide evidence in support of its claim. He further noted that all the details available as per record the amount of loan taken by the assessee was Rs. 1,52,23,892/- and amount of remission was Rs. 2,54,42,837/-, which establishes that the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars of income. As the assessee had not given any particulars of income under Section 41(1) of the Act neither in the return of income filed under Section 139 of the Act nor in the return filed under Section 148 of the Act. In this back drop, the A.O. held that the assessee had committed a fault within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 55,34,753/- vide order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of loan by the Bank in its return particularly when the assessee had not given any particulars of its income under Section 41(1) of the Act neither in the Return filed under Section 139 (1) nor in the Return filed in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. 6. In support of its contention, the appellant has placed reliance on Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Zoom Communication P. Ltd reported in (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Delhi) where it is held that in case of concealment of income, claim for deduction is not bonafide, therefore, the assessee is liable to pay penalty, but here as held by the learned ITAT there is no concealment of the income on the part of the assessee, therefore, on the facts this judgement is distinguishable. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
