TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rers in quantum appeal, this Coordinate Bench for AY 2005-06 [2012 (11) TMI 1077 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] had restored this issue back to the file of AO for de novo assessment. Under these facts, the penalty levied on this amount does not survive. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2966/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2015 - Pramod Kumar, AM And Kul Bharat, JM, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri H V Vora , AR For the Respondent : Shri P L Kureel , Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Surat ['CIT(A)' in short] dated 28/09/2011 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06. The Assessee has raised the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Tribunal. However, the issue relating to the payment to the labourers was not before the Tribunal. He submitted that under the facts of the present case, the authorities below were not justified in imposing the penalty and confirming the same. 3.1. On the contrary, ld.Sr.DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that in quantum appeal, the disallowance in respect of foreign travel expenses has been sustained by the Tribunal. 3.2. In rejoinder, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of addition made on account of disallowance of bonus payment to labourer amounting to ₹ 2,97,500/- has been restored back to the file of AO for decision a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 145A, if there is a change in the closing stock as on 31st March, 1999, there must necessarily be a corresponding adjustment in the opening stock as on 1st April, 1998, and since no adjustment was made by the assessee in the P L a/c for the year ending 31st March, 1998, no question of double deduction arises-Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the adjustment of ₹ 54,83,272 to the assessee in the opening stock for the previous asst. yr. 1998-99 (being a transitional year) under s. 145A. In the case of J.N.Parabia (Transport) (P) Ltd. (supra) it was held as under: Penalty under sc. 271(1)(c) - Concealment- Work-in-progress not disclosed - Same system following by assessee-company since its inception and has been accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d circumstance of the case it is apparent that the assessee had not concealed any particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. It is only an inadvertent mistake committed by the appellant in not adopting the correct method of accounting. Further no element of profit had escaped tax though it may have spilled over to the subsequent year and that too marginally. Further considering the above case laws, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case to levy penalty on this issue. Accordingly, we delete the levy of penalty made under this issue. 10. Imposition of penalty for disallowance on foreign travel expenses of ₹ 3,54,032/-:- During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. A.O. disallowed an expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its expenditure explicitly in its books of accounts. The assessee has also explained the purpose of such expenditure. The disallowance was made by the revenue authorities on the assumption that the expenses claimed to be not genuine because sufficient evidence to that extent was not produced. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that penalty levied on the above addition is not sustainable. Therefore, we hereby delete the penalty made on the disallowance of ₹ 3,54,032/- under the head foreign travel expenses. 4.1. The facts and circumstances are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
