TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Apex Court in CIT V/s Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.(2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT), Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). In case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.” - Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No.1591/Mum/2010 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2012 - SHRI D.K.AGARWAL AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, JJ. Appellant by : Shri Dharmesh Shah Respondent by : Shri C.G.K.Nair ORDER PER D.K.AG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A), the ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance of interest to Rs. 10,30,966/-. On further appeal by the Revenue to the Tribunal, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue s appeal and upheld the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). While completing the assessment, the AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be imposed. In response, the assessee filed his written submissions stating that the assessee has disclosed all the material facts relating to the assessment, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and in support the reliance was also p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not dispute that on the similar facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal in assessee s own case (supra) while observing that the decision in the case of M/s Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd.(supra) has been reversed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in S.A.Builders Ltd. V/s CIT(2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC), held that the claim of the assessee cannot be considered as false to attract the rigours of penalty u/s 271(1)( c) which is quasi criminal in nature and accordingly deleted the penalty. In the absence of any distinguishing features brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully following the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
