TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We also find that the decisions relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the respondent go to support the case of the assessee, against which no counter material could be adduced on behalf of the Revenue. The ld. CIT(A) also reached his conclusions after following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] which do not stand rebutted on behalf of the Revenue. We, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is found to have no merits and is liable to fail - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 6014/Del./2013, C.O. No. 133/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2016 - SHRI C.M. GARG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial pronouncements in the light of submissions made by assessee, observed that the explanation offered by the assessee for non-deduction of tax at source was bona fide and that the factum of non-deduction of tax on the interest payment was brought to the notice of Department at the time of filing of return itself by way of disclosure as appendix D (I) in Tax Audit Report u/s. 44AB. He therefore, deleted the penalty imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. The ld. Departmental Representative, reiterating the contents of the penalty order, submitted that the ld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the impugned penalty without appreciating the observatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Reliance is placed on the following decisions : (i). CIT vs. AT T Communication services India (P) Ltd., 342 ITR 257 (Del.). (ii). CIT vs. Dahyabhai Veljibhai Patel (ITA No. 793 of 2013) Gujrate High Court. (iii). ACIT vs. M.V. International Ltd.(ITA No. 1451/Kol/2012) ITAT Kolkata Bench. (iv). Ramkrishna Shetty vs. ACIT(2013) 38 CCH 20-ITAT Mumbai Bench. (v). ACIT vs. Seaways Shipping Limited (ITA No. 80/H/2011) ITAT, Hyd. Bench. (vi). ACIT vs. Medversity Online Ltd., 69 DTR 326-ITAT Hyd. Bench. (vii). ACIT vs. Narendrabhai P. Patel (ITA No. 2412/Ahd/2010) ITAT Ahmedabad Bench (viii). ACIT vs. Rajinder Kumar(2012) 32 CCH 433, ITAT Del. Bench (ix). Tanushree Basu vs. ACIT (2013) 36 CCH 89, ITAT Mumbai Bench. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. All these facts, in our considered opinion are suffice to form a bona fide belief, which led the respondent not to deduct tax on interest payment, but this by itself does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, as observed by the AO. Laying our hands on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd., 322 ITR 174, we are of the opinion that mere making of the claim which is not sustainable in the law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the instant case, the assessee made a claim but the same was rejected and disallowed not for the reason that the claim was fabricated, but keeping in view th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
