9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... URT ] and CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] has clearly laid down the dictum that merely making an incorrect claim does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, the penalty levied by the AO on estimated addition which is not sustainable. Bogus purchase has never been added back in impugned assessment year. Only part of depreciation @35% is duly allowed which confirmed there is no dispute on impugned purchases of the assessee and the disallowance only @25% of depreciation on estimation basis. Therefore, no merit in the order of the CIT(A). We respectfully distinguish the orders of the Hon ble Apex Court and orders of the co-ordinate bench of Jaipur Tribunal relied on by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the fact the appellant had not submitted any inaccurate particulars. 4 The Appellant craves, leave to add to, amend alter or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if necessary." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 31/01/2015. The ld.AO found that the assessee has made the 'hawala' transactions as per the information received from the DGIT (Inv) amount to Rs. 1,61,69,712/- and assessee purchased the computers which are used for rental purposes. The depreciation was claimed by the assessee @60% amount to Rs. 97,01,827/- on computers amount to Rs. 1,61,69,712/-. Out of that the ld.AO disallow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eleted. The co-ordinate bench of ITAT-Mumbai relied on the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs CIT 292 ITR 11 (SC) and CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) has clearly laid down the dictum "that merely making an incorrect claim does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, the penalty levied by the ld.AO on estimated addition which is not sustainable. The ld.CIT(A) in impugned appeal order relied on the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JRD StockBrokers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2017) 79 taxmann.com 184 (SC). The issue is dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the search was initiated under section 132(4) with it include accommodation entries. The levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
