TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn of income. In the present appeal, the Assessing Officer has not found any discrepancy, inaccuracy or concealment in the return. The Assessing Officer’s view is totally misplaced and de hors any merit as section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose penalty on the assessee when such assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars. However, in the present appeal, there is nothing on record to hold that the assessee has either concealed the particulars of its income or furnished any inaccurate particulars thereof. We accordingly decide the issue in favour of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y. 2004-05 not allowed the losses to be carried forward and for the A Y. 2005-06 reduced the losses. All the available business losses and depreciation had been set off from the income of A Y. 2007-08. Hence no business loss and depreciation is available with the assessee to set off the losses from die income there is a show cause why the losses claimed and set off from the income should not be disallowed . In response to the show cause notice, vide letter dated nil, the assessee submitted as under: That in the year under consideration brought forward losses shown by the assessee in the return of income is ₹ 19,44,373.18/- and set off of the same was claimed against income of ₹ 18,61,812/-. That an addition of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2011, its assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) had already been competed vide order dated 28.12.2007 and the loss to be carried forward was determined at ₹ 1,63,200/- as against the returned loss of ₹ 29,97,850/-. Thus, when the return of income in response to notice u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act for the assessment year under consideration was filed on 14.10.2011, it was in the knowledge of the appellant that its loss of the assessment year 2005-06 which was to be brought forward was determined at ₹ 1,63,200/-. Therefore, it was the duty of the appellant to make a correct and complete disclosure of particulars of brought forward losses while filing its return for the assessment year under consideration in response to n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief of ₹ 1,91,605/-. 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:- 1. That the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is bad in law and on facts of the case. 2. That the learned Commissionerof Income-tax(Appeals) erred in sustaining the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the tune of ₹ 3,83,695/- holding that the assessee has sought to evade tax. 3. That the learned Commissionerof Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessee has failed in its duty for not disclosing correct particulars of brought forward losses for assessment year 2005-06 ignoring the evidences and submissions adduced by the appellant during assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment Year 2005-06, the penalty ought to be deleted. It was further submitted that as on date, the brought forward losses of A.Y. 2005-06 are again available to the assessee as claimed in the return of income and consequential effect of the same will be that the assessed income for A.Y. 2008-09 will again be reduced to the book profit taxable under MAT provisions (as returned by the assessee) hence, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as the assessee had made a bona fide claim in the return of income which was rejected and it had disclosed all the particulars of income. 7. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
