9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence ordered to be deleted. Consequently, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.5570/Del./2018 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2019 - Shri N.S. Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The appellant, Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the Assessee ) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 26.06.2018 passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals), Meerut, by allowing the penalty order dated 26.03.2018 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ), qua the assessment year 2013-14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present appeal with the assistance of the ld. DR as well as on the basis of documents available on the file. 5. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative for the revenue to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Undisputedly, addition made by the AO has been confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). It is also not in dispute that penalty has been imposed on the basis of three additions made by the AO : one, deduction claimed by the assessee on account of interest of ₹ 4,08,000/- u/s 36 (1)(iii) of the Act was disallowed; two, that the assessee has failed to verify the sales made in the jewellery business by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h interest of ₹ 30,000/- was allowed. The addition of ₹ 15,20,750/- and ₹ 9,40,000/- was also made on failure of the assessee to get the sale and purchase of jewellery verified. But at no point of time, the AO has come up with categoric finding that the assessee filed incorrect or erroneous or false documents to make the claim in his income-tax return. It is settled principle of law that mere making of claim which is not sustainable does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 10. Hon ble Supreme Court in a case cited as CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) . decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee. Operative part of which is reproduced for ready reference as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. 11. Hon ble Delhi High Court in case cited as CIT vs. IFCI Limited (2010) 328 ITR 611 (Delhi) while deciding the identical issue held that in case, if any claim made by the assessee has not been accepted it would not per se tantamount to furnishing any account of inaccurate particulars to attract the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Operative part of the aforesaid judgment is extracted as under :- Held; dismissing the appeal, that the assessee had filed the return and furnished all particulars. The assessee had explained during the penalty proceedings that the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
