9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT (A) erred in cancelling the penalty of ₹ 15,56,975/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, despite the facts highlighted in the assessment order to the effect that the assessee had omitted to disclose the income taxable as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and overlooking the fact that the assessee s case is distinguishable from those of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [322 ITR 158] (SC) and Atul Mohan Bindal [317 ITR 1](SC) relief on by the CIT (A). 2. The facts revealed from the records are as under. The assessee company is engaged in the business of Exporter, Manufacturer trader of readymade garments other materials. The assessee filed the return of income f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncealment inaccurate , and particulars used in clause (c) of section 271(1) and held that everything would depend upon the return of income filed because that was the only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars of income. The Apex Court held that when the assessee furnished all details of 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 a authorities to accept its claim in the return or not and merely because the assessee had made the claim which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue as the same was not sustainable in law, that by itself would not attract the penalty under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... une Bench in the case of Shri Ulhas S. Sabane vs. ITO 2007-(ID2)-GJX-0762-TPUN order dated 30.08.2007. In the said case, the addition was made u/s.2(22)(e) and the A.O. levied the penalty on the said addition. The Tribunal deleted the penalty following the decision in the case of Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC). In the present case, we find that the assessee pleaded before the A.O. as well as before the appellate authorities that M/s. Saema Fashion Export Pvt. Ltd. which is an associated concern was also carrying out its business from the premises of the assessee company on payment of rent. It was also submitted that the goods belonging to the said company were being stored in the said premises and even the job work was also given by the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
