TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e's contention that the returned loss was understated by Rs. 44,70,437 vis-a-vis the loss stated originally as this aspect of the matter has not been examined by any of the authorities below by way of a speaking order– Held that:- Matter deserves to be remitted to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication give a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee - I. T. A. No. 5344/Mum/2008, - - - Dated:- 5-10-2011 - Pramod Kumar, Vijay Pal Rao, JJ. G. P. Mehta for the Appellant B. Jayakumar for the Respondent ORDER Pramod Kumar, Accountant Member:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dated June 27, 2008 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the matter of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was thus disallowed and added back to income. This addition has been sustained in appeals before the Commissioner as also the Tribunal, for want of complete details. The matter did not rest with disallowance. As noted by the Assessing Officer in the impugned penalty order, as this act of the assessee amounts to filing of inaccurate particulars of income penalty proceedings were initiated and the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed. The assessee's reply was that the amounts were outstanding for long time and, therefore, written off, but the assessee was not able to furnish the complete particulars for write off. It was emphasised by the assessee that the amounts were brought forward from earlier yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... val contentions and having perused the material on record, we find that the penalty has been levied by the Assessing Officer, and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), on the short ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by making a wrong claim for write off of dues, but then, at this stage we must take note of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), wherein their Lordships were in seisin of the question whether (page 165 of 322 ITR) "in this case, as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate particulars". Upon analysing the facts of the case and that the assessee has made a claim which was not admissible in law, their Lordships noted.t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment proceedings, it appears that this amount of Rs. 2,82,00,000 was excluded from the total income, and an amount of Rs. 2,37,29,563, being capital gains computed under the Income-tax Act and taxable at lower rate of 10 per cent., were included. The assessee's contention is that, as a result of this adjustment, the returned loss was in fact understated by Rs. 44,70,437 vis-a-vis the loss stated originally. This aspect of the matter has not been examined by any of the authorities below by way of a speaking order, and it is not clear as to how such an adjustment can be viewed as concealment of income. An adjustment on account of which the loss is in fact understated cannot, as it appears to us, be treated as concealment of income. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
