TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty of ₹ 6,00,000 u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowances of ₹ 4,72,603 on account of interest expenses and ₹ 14,00,000 on account of disallowance of bad debts. Against the addition in the quantum assessment, matter went upto the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dt.24.8.2007 in ITANo.903/Ahd/2007 and others (copy placed on record) held that the Assessing Officer should consider the claim of ₹ 14 lakhs as loss under the head speculation loss to be carried forward. As regards the claim disallowance of ₹ 4,72,603 on account of interest, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that since the said loss is set off against the income of the assessee from brokerage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st, a portion of interest had been allowed by the CIT(A) and the appeal of revenue has been rejected by the I.T.A.T. On verification of details/evidences now furnished by the A.R it can be seen that the claim of bad debts and interest expenses was genuine and the additions were made to the total income, because of difference of opinion and hence, I am in agreement with the argument of the appellant that by rejection of assessee s claim by relying on different interpretation, it could not be said that particulars of income had been concealed. The decision of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Eicher Goodearth Ltd., reported in 170 Taxman 27 (Del), wherein it was held that there is no justification to levy penalty when the AO had not found particula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concealment not being an essential requirement for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)( c) as held by the Supreme Court in UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277, penalty could not be deleted. We find that similar argument was made by the Revenue in the case of CIT vs. M/s Sidhartha Enterprises and Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court rejecting the plea held : The judgment in Dharmendra Textile cannot be read as laying down that in every case where particulars of income are inaccurate, penalty must follow. What has been laid down is that qualitative difference between criminal liability u/s 276C and penalty u/s 271(1) ( c) had to be kept in mind and approach adopted to the trial of a criminal case need not be adopted while considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
