TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1010X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee - ITA No. 2427/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2016 - Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Member And Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Neil Philip, ld. DR For the Respondent : Shri M.P Lohia, Nikhil Tiwari ORDER Per Sandeep Gosain, JM This present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order passed by learned CIT(A) 17, Mumbai dated 29-01-2014 for A.Y 2006-07 on the following grounds:- 1) On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the assessee had failed to rebut the presumption in Explanation - 1 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2) On the fact and in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of notice u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. In response to which the assessee vide its letter dated 22-03-2012 submitted as under:- (c) Adjustment under section 145A of the Act to the value of closing stock: With regards to adjustment made by AO under section 145A of the Act to the value of closing stock, MIL has to state as under:- During the year under consideration, MIL has followed an exclusive method as far as the provisions of section 145A of the Act are concerned. As per Annexure B to the tax audit report it could be observed that the tax auditor has duly certified that the net effect of deviations from the valuation prescribed under section 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 3.1 During the course of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) ( c) before the AO the assessee has relied on various case laws in support of its submissions. Finally, relying on the decision of the Hon ble SC in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Ors (306 ITR 277), wherein it has been held that the assessee concealed its income and submitted inaccurate particulars of income, the AO levied a penalty u/s. 271(1)( c) of the Act of ₹ 1,17,20,074/- for submission of concealment/inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order the assessee filed appeal before learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) after considering the various submissions of the assessee and by relying on the various judgments of the court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner to be false, or (B) Such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, Then the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause ( c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 8.1 Ld. CIT(A) after thoroughly considering the facts as well as legal position has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. In view of the given facts and circumstances and relying on the decision of Hon ble Apex Court cited supra, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) and appeal of revenue is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
