9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e act, on the part of the assessee not to disclose the business receipts in the income tax return. The Revenue has also not brought any material suggesting that the assessee deliberately furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. Addition/disallowances made during the quantum proceedings does not automatically justify the levy of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Besides the element of income added in the quantum proceedings, there must be some material/circumstantial evidences leading to the reasonable conclusion that there was conscious concealment or the act of furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. We are not convinced with the finding of the authorities below. Hence we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty levied by him under section 271(1)(c). - Decided in favour of assessee. Order being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing - COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. See case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited [ 2020 (5) TMI 359 - ITAT MUMBAI ] - Shri W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the appellant had concealed the particulars of income by way of not disclosing the correct income. In my opinion, the AO has correctly levied the penalty of ₹ 95,441/- u/s, 271(1)(c) of the Act in view of the fact that as per information received by the AO from Central Excise Department, Jamnagar there was unaccounted sales of Rs, 3,08,86,570/-. It may be the case that the AO has made addition at the rate of 1% of the total sales, but the facts remain that the sales to the extent of ₹ 3,08,86,570/- were not accounted for by the appellant in its books of account. Thus it can be said that the profit which was required to be disclosed by the appellant in its books of account on the basis of sales of ₹ 3,08,86,570/- was not disclosed and it was only when the case of the appellant was reopened u/s. 148 for the year under consideration that the appellant came forward and admitted such sales of ₹ 3,08,86,570/-. Thus it can not be said that the appellant had made suo-moto disclosure of the profit on the sales of ₹ 3,08,86,570/-. Considering these facts, it is held that the AO has correctly fevied the penalty of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false Now, if we analyses the facts of the present case in the light of the above stated discussion, we find that there was no information available with the Revenue for the unaccounted sale made by the assessee. Thus it is transpired that there was no deliberate act, on the part of the assessee not to disclose the business receipts in the income tax return. The Revenue has also not brought any material suggesting that the assessee deliberately furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. In our considered view any addition/disallowances made during the quantum proceedings does not automatically justify the levy of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Besides the element of income added in the quantum proceedings, there must be some material/circumstantial evidences leading to the reasonable conclusion that there was conscious concealment or the act of furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, we are not convinced with the finding of the authorities below. Hence we set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter, the lockdown by observing that In case the limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 till the date on which the lockdown is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of lockdown . Hon ble Bombay High Court, in an order dated 15th April 2020, has, besides extending the validity of all interim orders, has also observed that, It is also clarified that while calculating time for disposal of matters made timebound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly , and also observed that arrangement continued by an order dated 26th March 2020 till 30th April 2020 shall continue further till 15th June 2020 . It has been an unprecedented situation not only in India but all over the world. Government of India has, vide notification dated 19th February 2020, taken the stand that, the coronavirus should be considered a case of natural calamity and FMC (i.e. force majeure clause) maybe invoked, wherever considered appropriate, following the due procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
