9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd could not be established with the supportive evidence or materials - penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is attracted in this case - 155 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2009 - K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ. J. Balachandar for S. Sridhar, for the appellant. JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. - The revenue on appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, 26.09.2008 passed in ITA No.1875/Mds/07 in respect of the assessment year 2003-04. 2. The material facts as culled out from the statement of facts in the memorandum of grounds of appeal are as follows:- (i) The assessee is an individual carrying on business of trading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was accepted by the Assessing Officer and he did not give any finding as to the non-existence or bogusness of the creditors. (iii) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by accepting the plea of the assessee, deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, against which the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. (iv) The Tribunal on facts has found that during the assessment proceedings, when the assessee was asked to file the details of sundry creditors whose outstanding was above Rs.50,000/-, he filed details of the same. When he was further asked to file confirmation of the creditors, he filed a letter explaining the sundry creditors position and further contended that some of the creditors were paid in subsequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption should be construed as a separate proceedings, requiring independent consideration and recording of findings on the issues emanating and urged by the Cross Objector/Appellant herein?" 3. The learned counsel for the appellant very strenuously contended that the Tribunal went wrong in allowing the appeal of the revenue by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and he also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of India Cane Agencies vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2005] 275 ITR 430. 4. We are not able to subscribe our views with the reasoning of the counsel for the assessee. It is evident from the records that the assessee took one stand before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a result of gross negligence which was not capable of being regarded as an innocent act, penalty is not ordinarily levied. Concealment implies the existence of a deliberate intent to prevent relevant facts from becoming known. This however is not to say that the assessee can afford to be routinely careless and casual while submitting the returns. He certainly does have a duty to verify the particulars furnished by him to ensure that particulars furnished are accurate. It was further held that the discount to be given by the assessee to its customers which was to take effect in future years could be shown as an amount due to sundry debtors, would not by itself justify a finding that the assessee had concealed the income or furnished inacc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
