9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vassed by the learned counsel of the assessee are germane and support the case of the assessee. As held in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] , the disallowance of a claim made by the assessee cannot itself give rise to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, in the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, we uphold the same. Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion for excise liability of ₹ 30,00,000/- had been reversed in F.Y.2006-07 and has already been taxed in A.Y.2007-08 and accordingly rejected the claim of the assessee by holding that the excise duty is governed by the provisions of section 43B of the Act and such expenses are allowed only on actual payments. The said addition was duly confirmed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). By placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharmendra Processors [306 ITR 277], the Assessing Officer has held that the act of the assessee is not bonafide and hence it is a fit case to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, it was heldthat the assessee has evaded tax in respect of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are two different proceedings and independent to each other merely because the addition is confirmed does not mean that penalty is automatically applicable. The Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. VIP Industries Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the AR of the appellant has distinguished the decision of the Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles Processors relied on by the A.O. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, it is held that the appellant has not concealed the particulars of income and also not submitted inaccurate particulars but only made claim of provision which was not accepted by the A.O. Thus, it is not a case of concealment of income and submitting inaccurate particulars as per the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee. Hence, there is no case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, the case laws relied upon by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and as canvassed by the learned counsel of the assessee are germane and support the case of the assessee. Furthermore, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158, the disallowance of a claim made by the assessee cannot itself give rise to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, in the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, we uphold the same. 9. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
