9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of the Assessing Officer the expenses were in the nature of preoperative expenses. Further, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas on facts of the case, it is our considered opinion that all the information relevant to the impugned disallowances was before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings and no case could have been made out by the AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 3614/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 3-10-2018 - Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon ble President And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member For the Department : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR For the Assessee : None present ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated and penalty of ₹ 20,47,864/- was imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.2 On appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty. Now, the department is before the ITAT and has challenged the deletion of penalty by the Ld. CIT (A) and has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to ₹ 20,47,864/- ignoring the fact that no appeal was filed by the assessee against the quantum addition of ₹ 66,29,006/-. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the company and the company had also sold samples of wooden flooring to one of the parties towards which an income of ₹ 82,932/- had been declared by the assessee. It is also seen that the Assessing Officer has not doubted the genuineness of the expenses and the only ground for disallowing the expenditure was that in view of the Assessing Officer the expenses were in the nature of preoperative expenses. Further, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas on facts of the case, it is our considered opinion that all the information relevant to the impugned disallowances was before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings and no case could have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shing of an assessment of the value of the property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the Assessing Officer must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that the explanation must be preceded by a finding as to how and in what manner, the assessee had furnished the particulars of his income. The Court ultimately went on to hold that the element of means rea was essential. It was only on the point of means rea jhat the judgment in Dilip N. Shroff v Joint CIT was upset. 5.1 The Hon ble Apex Court further held as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
