TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... feitures were not produced since they were untraceable and the same was not concealed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Thus, there is no concealment. Thus, Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not correctly invoked by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) also overlooked the actual intention of the penalty proceedings which clearly set out that when there is inaccurate particulars or concealment on part of the assessee, then the same should be proceeded. But in the present case, the assessee has disclosed all the factual aspects before the Assessing Officer which cannot be stated that there was concealment of particulars of income or the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A .No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 12,410/-. The assessee company did not prefer any appeal against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and after considering the reply of the assessee company, levied penalty of ₹ 1,60,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the penalty in respect of three additions mentioned in the ground before this Tribunal. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the initiation of penalty and penalty notices are defective. The Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 01.12.2010. In Assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT Order Dtd. 22.12.2015. (PGS. 25 - 32 of compilation) (RP - 31) iii. SUVAPRASANNA BHATACHARYA Vs. ACIT (ITA NO. 1303 / KOL / 2010) Hon ble Kolkatta ITAT Order Dtd. 06.11.2015. (PGS. 33 - 52 of compilation) (RP - 52) iv. FORTUNE POLYMERS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. VS. DCIT. (ITA NO. 1036/D/2013) Hon ble Delhi ITAT order dtd. 16.01.2015. (PGS. 53 - 64 of compilation) (RP - 62 - 64) Thus, since, the show cause notices are invalid; all subsequent proceedings are also unsustainable in law. 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on merits also as on disallowances of business advance forfeited of ₹ 4,15,000/-. The assessee has been purchasing agricultural land, consolida ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticulars of income, mere rejection of assessee's claims under sections 36(l)(vii) and 37(1) relating to bad debts and prior period expenses would not lead to levy of penalty under section 271(l)(c). iii. CIT VS. DABWALI TRANSPORT CO. IN ITA NO. 872/ 2010, ORDER DTD. 15.03.2011 OF P H HIGH COURT held that where expenses claimed could not be substantiated upto High Court, but the mere fact that the assessee could not furnish evidence in support of expenses claimed was not by itself enough to hold that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. iv. DURGA KAMAL RICE MILLS VS. CIT 265 ITR 25 (CAL.) v. CIT VS. BACARDI MARTINI LTD. 288 ITR 585 (DEL.) vi. BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTING CO. OF INDIA LTD. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The Ld. DR could not distinguish the case laws cited by the Ld. AR. 9. We have perused all the records and heard both the parties. In the show cause notice dated 01/12/2010 there was no specific charges as relates to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as relates to business advance as it was forfeited and the same were accepted in respective years. Therefore, there was no concealment on the part of the assessee. This was a simple case of disallowance of expenses under the head in which most of smaller expenses have been allowed during the year as well as in the earlier years. Thus, the authorities cited by the Ld. AR are applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
