TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en upheld as such by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as well in the case of Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. [ 2010 (8) TMI 40 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Thus , on these premises also, the penalty is not maintainable. DR could not controvert the observations of the Ld. CIT (A) with any cogent evidence or information. Accordingly, we find that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed a reasoned order and relied on the judicial decision. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and uphold the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the revenue. - ITA No. 5028/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) - - - Dated:- 11-2-2021 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by: Shri Brajendra Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of concealment of income chargeable to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty it Is 271(l)(c) read with Explanation 2 is justified and the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd (2010) (328 ITR 44) (Del) wherein it is held that in case of a claim made in return of income found to be bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore penalty proceedings would be justified? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the penalty of ₹ 80,555/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating tile fact that the claims made is not only incorrect i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisfied with the explanations and observe that the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the purchases, hence made an addition of ₹ 1,21,25,460/- of bogus purchases and disallowance u/s 14A of the Act ₹ 1,00,186/- and assessed the total income of₹ 9,84,47,320/and passed the order u/s 143 (3) of the Act dated 26.03.2013. 4. Subsequently, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. In response to the notice, the assessee has explained that against the 100% addition of bogus purchases. On appeal by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition @ 25% of Bogus Purchases. Further, on the appeal by the revenue as well as the assessee, the Hon ble ITAT in the case of the revenue appeal ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also, the penalty is not maintainable. 3.1.9 Concludingly, the tenets for determining concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars have been laid out in the above judgments. The principles laid down in the above mentioned judgments of the Apex Court and jurisdictional courts and the facts and circumstances of the instant case do not merit imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at all. Penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of ₹ 80.555/- for alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars is, therefore, deleted. The Ld. DR could not controvert the observations of the Ld. CIT (A) with any cogent evidence or information. Accordingly, we find that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed a reasoned order and relied on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
