TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] We are of the view that the assessee has not deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars with a view to concealment of income. We further find that the explanation of the assessee is bonafide. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedents, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that the assessee would not be liable for levey of penalty and he deleted the penalty - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 4871/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 12-2-2015 - H. S. Sidhu (Judicial Member) And J. S. Reddy (Accountant Member) For the Department : B. R. R. Kumar, Sr. DR For the Assessee : None ORDER H. S. Sidhu (Judicial Member) This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,69,71,833/- were added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) were also initiated in the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) itself. In response to show cause notice u/s. 271(1) dated 19.3.2012, the assesse filed its reply dated 26.3.2012 through its Authorised Representative which was considered by the AO and the same was not accepted. During the course of assessment proceedings, the submission of the assessee with regard to prior period expenses were found to be factually incorrect. The assessee company was incorporated on 13.1.2006, i.e. during AY 2006-07 and in view of the above, AO held that prior period expenses amounting to ₹ 1,69,71,833/- should have been disallowed by the assesee in its co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as no attempt to conceal income. The assessee claimed the expenses in the current year under a bonafide belief that the expenses could be claimed as they were genuine business expenses. Ld. CIT(A) has considered the contention of the assessee and observed that the assessee had incurred an expenditure in the period prior to the current year. The assessee under a bonafide misconception debited the expenditure in the current year. There was no deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has found that from the record that the AO has never disputed the fact that the expenditure of ₹ 1,69,71,833/- was not genuine and was not for the purpose of business. Ld CIT(A) further noted that in the case of K.C. Builde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrant levy of penalty. 8.3 In this regard, we find Ld. CIT(A) has rightly applied the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 2463 of 2010 which is squarely applicable in the present case of the assessee. In this case vide order dated 17.3.2010 it has been held that the law laid down in the Dilip Sheroff case 291 ITR 519 (SC) as to the meaning of word concealment and inaccurate continues to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmender Textile case was only that part in Dilip Sheroff case where it was held that mensrea was a essential requirement of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon ble Apex Court also observed that if the contention of the revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
