9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as accepted the return of the assessee and has not brought on record any material to show that whatever stated in the return is incorrect or inaccurate, in such scenario, there is no question of imposing penalty under the said provision. In view of the above facts and circumstances and relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] we are of the view that on these grounds, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied. Thus, Ground No.1 and 3 raised in appeal by the Revenue are dismissed. - Shri R.S. Syal, VP And Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM For the Assessee : Shri H.P Mahajani For the Revenue : Shri Subhakanta Sahu ORD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of steam boilers, heat exchangers, water treatment plant, water treatment resins, water treatment chemicals, carbon and metal film resistors related accessories and treasury operations. It is also engaged in trading in various items. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 declaring total income of ₹ 3,70,78,639/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 01.03.2010 declaring total income of ₹ 3,69,13,43,639/-. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nses. 5. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We have also considered the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in quantum appeal preferred by the assessee and at Page 6, Para 16 wherein addition on commission expenses were deleted and the ground was allowed in favour of the assessee by observing as follows: 16. Ground No.6 of the assessee s appeal is against the confirmation of sales commission @10% amounting to ₹ 1,25,36,932/-. Following the view taken by the Tribunal in earlier years in deleting such ad hoc additions, except the A.Y.2006-07 for the special reasons as discussed in the Tribunal order for that year, we order to delete the sustenance of ad hoc disallowance out of the Commission expense ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.512/PUN/2014 and ITA No.717/PUN/2014 (supra.) at Page 3, Para 7, the Tribunal has dismissed this ground of the assessee and sustained the addition by observing as follows: 7. Ground No.2 of the assessee s appeal is against the confirmation of addition in respect of prior period expenses amounting to ₹ 12,93,616/-.Such ground has been dismissed by the Tribunal in earlier years. Following the same, we dismiss this ground of appeal as well. 9. Ground No.3 pertains to foreign exchange loss and in the quantum appeal preferred by the assessee (supra.), the Pune Bench of the Tribunal on this issue has held as follows: 19. The facts concerning this issue are that the assessee claimed deduction of net F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that such loss or profit is of revenue character. After considering the adverse Instruction No.03/2010, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Munjal Showa Vs. DCIT (2016) 67 taxmann.com 359 (Delhi) has held that such loss/profit to be of revenue character. It further held that the CBDT Instruction cannot override the judicially settled position. In view of the foregoing, we overturn the impugned order and direct to delete the addition of ₹ 2.18 crore. 21. As regards the loss of ₹ 8.88 crore, the ld. CIT(A) has held that the loss actually happened in April/May, 2009 and hence was of contingent nature. The ld. AR harped on the fact that it was an event occurring after the balance sheet date, but affecting the profitability for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petro Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held that a mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: 9. We are not concerned in the present case with the mens rea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this case, as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate particulars. In Webster's Dictionary, the word inaccurate has been defined as:- not accurate, not exact or correct; not according to truth; erroneous; as an inaccurate statement, c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
