9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s assessment U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has not challenged the order of assessment levying tax and interest thereon and paid tax and interest amounting to Rs. 3,05,000/- as on 30/04/2015 that by itself would not be sufficient for the authorities either to initiate penalty proceeding or impose penalty three times of normal Tax of Rs. 1,60,015/- amounting to Rs. 4,80,045/- which is without any basis and without bringing any fresh material or records. 3. That the imposition of penalty even if the tax liability is admitted is not automatic. Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law. 4. That the Ld. A.O. has issued notice u/s 274 of the Act, does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He applied a net profit rate of 10% to the total deposits of Rs. 1,02,11,753/- o arrive at a profit from business of Rs. 10,21,175/-. He set off the income of Rs. 2,10,000/- already declared, and made an addition of Rs. 8,11,175/-. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant did not contest this assessment order in appeal. Thereafter, in response to the show cause notice of penalty u/s 271{1)(c) the assessee submitted that penalty could not be initiated on a protective assessment. As the assessment in question had not been framed on a protective basis, the AO found no merit in this argument. It was held in the order of penalty that the return was filed disclosing onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. Reported at 168 ITR 705 that from the assessee agreeing to additions to his income, it does not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income. There may be a hundred and one reasons for such admission. He further stated that addition in this case was made on protected assessment/addition on estimated basis which is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Bahilal Manilal Patel vs. CIT (2015) 232 Taxmann. 483 (2014). In view of above, he prayed that the appeal of the assessee may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative controverted the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 463 of 2010 is squarely applicable in the present case of the assessee wherein it was held as under:- "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. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under s. 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under s. 271 (1)(c). That is clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
