9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the ld. D.R. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of exporting readymade garments to USA and European countries. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was inter alia observed by the A.O. that the assessee has debited Rs. 3,41,672/- in the P&L account towards foreign travelling expenses. On being asked to file the details of such expenses and the relationship with the business activity, the assessee filed details of expenses and stated that all the foreign trips were undertaken by the partners for the business purposes only. In the absence of any documentary evidence to show the business relationship of the foreign trips, the A.O. out of foreign travelling expenses of Rs. 3,42 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also filed. However, the ld. CIT(A) while observing that the Authorised Representative of the appellant is only an agent of the appellant, the agent cannot be treated in isolation of the principal and the burden was on the appellant to check with him, held that there was no reasonable cause and hence declined to condone the delay. On merits, the ld. CIT(A) while agreeing with the view of the A.O. confirmed the penalty imposed by the A.O. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us challenging in both the grounds the refusal of condonation of delay and sustenance of penalty imposed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. At the time of hearing the ld. D.R. supports the order of the A.O. and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art of the counsel was bona fide, the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay and upholding the registration of the firm." 10. In Subhkaran & Sons v. N.A. Kazi, 5th ITO and Others (1985) 152 ITR 231 (Bom) it has been held that (page 232): " Held, (i) that the record showed, and it was also admitted by the chartered accountants, that Form No. 11A had been duly signed by all the partners in time and had been handed over to them for filing the same with the I.T. Department but it was not filed in time due to oversight; (ii) that the original firm had been granted registration for the earlier years and this firm had been granted registration for subsequent years except for the disputed assessment year; (iii) that it was not the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the firm was entitled to registration for the assessment year 1977-78." 11. Respectfully following the above decisions we are of the view that there was a reasonable cause and, hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 12. On merits, we find that since the disallowance was made on estimate basis, that by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the income. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) after considering various decisions including Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519(SC) and Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277(SC) has observed and held (page 158 head notes) as under: "A glance at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
