9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has willfully treated his income in such a manner that lead to loss of revenue and tantamount of furnishing the inaccurate particulars. 2. In stating that Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is squarely not covered whereas it is squarely covered. 3. Not considering the fact that the assessee has shown its different head of income to avoid th tax liability. 4. The appellant craves the right to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal." 2. The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both parties, therefore, no need to repeat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dials International vs. ACIT, in the quantum appeal of assessee's own case wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:- "This Court is thus of the opinion that the Ld. ITAT erred in holding the transactions to be income from business and profession. The order of the ITAT is consequently set aside and the appeal is answered in favor of the assessee." 6. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in its present appeal. 7. We have heard both the parties, perused and considered the relevant records available with us, specially the orders of the Revenue authorities; copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in 306 ITR 277 wherein it has been held that:- "Merely because the addition is confirmed does not ipso facto attract the penalty provision. In the penalty proceedings, the whole matter has to be seen in a different perspective irrespective of the fact that the addition has been confirmed by Higher Authorities." 5.11 In the entirety of the facts and circumstances and for the cumulative reasons stated above, I am of the considered opinion that the disclosures made by the appellant in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition has been confirmed by Higher Authorities." 9. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedents, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the disclosures made by the assessee in this regard were bona fide and were not false or fanciful. We find that Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee did not file inaccurate particulars of income in claiming deduction of the aforesaid amount. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), hence, we uphold the same. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
