9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) is not maintainable. Hence, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty u/s.271(1)(c). Accordingly, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 1951/PUN/2018 - - - Dated:- 4-11-2022 - SHRI S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Dhanesh Bafna Chandani Shah AR ( s ) Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde DR ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE , AM : This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune, dated 01.11.2018 for the A.Y. 2007-08 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short the Act ). The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Erroneous levy o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of international transactions. Rs.38,37,270/-. The Appellant prays that it has exercised due diligence in determining the arms' length price of international transactions and thus provisions of explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) should not apply. Accordingly, penalty levied in this regard ought be deleted. 4. Erroneous levy of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars u/s 271(1)(c) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO for levying penalty being 100% of tax on addition to returned income amounting to INR 38,37,270, under explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) without taking cognizance of the fact that transfer pricing adjustment ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of penalty and therefore, the penalty order is bad in law. The ld.AR relied on the Hon ble Bombay High Court decision Ganga Iron Steel Trading Co. v/s Commissioner of Income Tax. [2022] 135 taxmann.com 244 (Bombay). 3. The ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue could not rebut the submission of the ld.Authorised Representative. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. On page no.413 of the paper book filed by the assessee, the assessee has enclosed copy of notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 26.12.2016. It is observed from the record that the AO has not struck off the relevant words i.e. have concealed the particulars of your income/furnished inaccurate particulars of such i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issuance of such show cause notice without specifying as to whether the Assessee had concealed particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of the same has resulted in vitiating the show cause notice. Heavy reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the Revenue on the decision in Mak Data (P.) Ltd. (supra) to urge that the penalty contemplated by section 271 (1) (c) of the said Act was in the nature of civil liability and mens rea was not essential therein. The decision in Dilip N. Shroff (supra) having been held as not laying down good law in Dharmendra Textile Processors Ltd. (supra), it was submitted that the show cause notice issued in the present proceedings was liable to be upheld. It may be noted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
