TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court has held that 'where there is no findings that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, there is no question of inviting the penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount of furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. Nos. 2540 TO 2542/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2017 - SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Dr. Ram Samujh, A.R. For The Revenue : Shri Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM These three appeals are filed by the Assessee aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red upholding the levy of penalty on income of ₹ 96,065/- by AO on the losses incurred by the appellant from garment business without substantiating the manipulation and tampering. ii) The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend modify, alter, add or forego any grounds of appeal at any time before or during the appeal. 5. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was carried out in the Suresh Nanda Group of cases on 28.2.2007 of which the assessee was a member. In this case notice u/s. 153A was issued on 18.11.2008 and served on the assessee. Pursuant thereto the applicant filed its return declaring income of ₹ 15,14,302/- u/s. 153A(1)(a) of the I.T. Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ased on any seized material nor with other documentary evidence. He further stated that AO did not consider the assessee s explanation in proper perspective but he levied the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) merely on the basis of disallowance made in the assessment order and upheld in the appellate orders in quantum appeals. Also as per the assessee s counsel contention, there was no satisfaction for concealment was recorded by the AO; the onus proving the concealment lies on the revenue. It was his further contention that penalty cannot be levied on the basis of assessment order and appellate order as the penalty are all together different than the assessment proceedings. In view of above, the penalty is not leviable. In support of his contention, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnishing a inaccurate particulars of income. As the assessee has furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. 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 u/sec. 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 the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c). That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
