9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome of assessee. Merely because assessee had claimed expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Respectfully following the decision in Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra), we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2480/MUM/2011, ITA No. 2479/MUM/2011 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2019 - Shri Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) And Shri N.K. Pradhan (Accountant Member) For the Assessee : Mr. J.D. Mistry, AR For the Revenue : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM The captioned app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein it was held that the onus to prove assessee was not guilty of fraud or gross or willful neglect in submitting original return was on the assessee and not on the Department. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2003-04 on 20.11.2003 declaring taxable income of ₹ 36,61,74,280/-. The Assessing Officer (AO), while passing the order u/s 143(3) made certain disallowances in the return of income filed by the assessee. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), against the said additions/disallowances. While disposing the appeal, the CIT(A) deleted certain additions and upheld the following disallowances on account of appellant s claim : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31.01.2011 held - 2.3 The submissions made for the appellant and the penalty order have been considered. The Assessing Officer had totally relied on the findings given in the assessment order while passing the penalty order. The appellant has claimed that all details were furnished both to the Assessing Officer as also to the Special Auditor appointed by the Department. The Assessing Officer has not brought any materials to justify that there was concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars. It is now an accepted fact that the quantum addition does not automatically lead to concealment. The addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds cancelled. 5. Before us, the Ld. DR relies on the order of the AO. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relies on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In the instant case, the assessee has furnished all the details to the AO as well as to the Special Auditor appointed by the Department. The AO has failed to bring any material to justify that there was concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars. In the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 322 (SC), the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that the mere making of claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
