TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The dispute was as to the nature of amount lying in the account – whether in the nature of liability or income. In the quantum proceedings, the addition was, however, sustained as the assessee could not furnish any documentary evidence to support its claim. Relying on the decision in Reliance Petroproducts (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT), mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee, particularly when the assessee had shown some the reasons for not furnishing the supporting documentary evidence in the quantum proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 5972/Del./2014 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2018 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further direction by client to make payment on its behalf and the amount could not be refunded for a long period of time. 2. From the above grounds of appeal and attending facts available on record, it emerges out that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has been imposed against the assessee on the basis of addition of ₹ 3,47,831/- made by Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings on account of the above amount lying in the clients deposit account shown on the liability side of the balance sheet. The contention of the assessee has been that the assessee is said to have received ₹ 5,75,331/- from his client for payment of tax to be made on their behalf. Out of above amount, ₹ 2,27,500/- was spent on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad Bench in the case of Sh. Keshavbhai B. Tandel vs. ITO (ITA Nos. 1215/Ahd./2007 and 3266/Ahd/2009) (copy placed on record), wherein relying on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158, the penalty has been deleted. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in Karan Raghav Exports (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 21 taxmann.com 8(Delhi). 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the addition on the basis of which, the impugned penalty has been levied stood confirmed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act have rightly been invoked by the authorities below for levying penalty against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Hon ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Karan Raghav Exports P. Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) relied by the assessee also supports the case of the assessee. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, we, therefore, do not find that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof entailing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances, there is no good reason to sustain the penalty in the instant case. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the appeal of the assessee deserves to be allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 1st February, 2018 - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
