TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent case. The CIT (A)’s finding that the assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is in appropriate as the Assessing Officer at any point of time has not scrutinized 2003-04 of the assessment on records and issued any notice before the filing of revised return. Thus, when the error was known to the assessee, the assessee itself has filed the revised return this act shows that it is not intentional furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on behalf of the assessee. The case laws placed before us are also in support of the assessee’s case. - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A .No.-1755/DEL/2012, I.T.A .No.-3052/DEL/2011 - - - Dated:- 16-2-2016 - SHRI J. S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances of the case and in law, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied by the A.O in respect of the disallowance/additions made in the assessment order and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) and the Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ). The same has been done ignoring the fact that the appellant has made a full and true disclosure of all facts in respect of the claims made in the return of income. Accordingly, there was neither any concealment of income no furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income. 3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by Ld. CIT (A) confirming the penalty ignoring the fact that the appellant has made a full disclosure in respect of the claims ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, the appellant company was engaged in the business of freight forwarders providing services of freight handling, transportation to the exporters and importers etc. It entered into numerous transactions with its overseas group companies in the course of providing freight forwarding services to its customers for export as well as import of cargo on reciprocal basis. 5. The assessee company discontinued the business with effect from 1 April 2006 pursuant to global takeover of the business of the assessee company and its assets and certain liabilities were transferred to M/s UPS SCS (India) Pvt. Ltd in India and remaining employees left the services of the appellant company. Therefore, from 1 April 2006 the appellant company is not carryin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed due to discontinuance of business and as all the employees of the assessee had left. 9. The A.O passed an order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30th March 2009 levying a penalty aggregation to ₹ 58,53,210/- alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the items stated there in for the additions/disallowances in the assessment order. 10. The AR submitted that the Revenue has filed the appeal only on the issue of deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of addition of ₹ 17,42,063/- made by disallowance expenses incurred by re-imbursement of communication fees paid to the Directors of the assessee company. The AR pointed out Para 6.1.5 6.2, the CIT (A) s order wherein it has been categoric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance made does not justify and mandate levy of penalty for concealment u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levy of penalty is not an automatic consequence when an addition is made by disallowing an expense and by not accepting the interpretation given by the assessee. Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) clearly stipulates that the penalty can be imposed when the details furnished by the assessee are found to be incorrect, erroneous and false merely making a claim which is held as not sustainable under law should not lead to penalization when the assessee had furnished full details in the return itself in the claim is debatable, reasonably plausible or may will have been accepted. The assessee also relied upon the CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e inaccurate, inadequate returns u/s 271(1)(c). If there is any inaccurate particulars of income furnished with intention then that has to be penalized but in present case, there was no such intention in the present case. The CIT (A) s finding that the assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is in appropriate as the Assessing Officer at any point of time has not scrutinized 2003-04 of the assessment on records and issued any notice before the filing of revised return. Thus, when the error was known to the assessee, the assessee itself has filed the revised return this act shows that it is not intentional furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on behalf of the assessee. The case laws placed before us are als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
