TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of business and expenses incurred by the company. Held that:- In present year as well it is not a case of the Revenue that assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of the income or there is concealment of income on part of the assessee. Thus, the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act will not be attracted in the present case as well. - Penalty deleted - Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No.1576/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2018 - SH. N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh. K.Sampath, Adv. Sh. V.Raja Kumar, Adv. For The Revenue : Sh. Vijay Kr. Jiwani, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the assessee agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in stating that the Appellant company has not furnished truly and fully all material facts and information called for by the Ld. AO. 5. The Hon. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in not accepting that the appellant had voluntarily and in good faith, made full and true disclosures of all material facts in its return of income during the course of assessment proceedings. The above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to one another. 3. Carrefour WC C India Private Limited was incorporated on 19th September 2007 to carry on wholesale trading of all kinds of consumer goods, durables, articles and to carry out any and all such activitie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April 2015 was passed by the Assessing Officer with the addition on account of Arm s Length Price u/s 92CA(3) of the Act - ₹ 1,39,47,334/-. As per the above addition, the returned loss of ₹ 54,14,79,557/- filed by the assessee company was reduced to ₹ 52,75,32,220/-. 4. Pursuant to this, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice dated 21st April 2015 to the assessee company for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee company filed its detailed submissions on 05th May 2015 requesting the Assessing Officer to drop the penalty proceedings. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the submission made by the Assessee and levied a penalty of ₹ 47,40,699/- vide order dated 29th March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee company would not be able to set off these losses in any future years. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company is desirous of seeking accelerated closure of its pending tax assessments for the past years(s) to mitigate compliance cost and facilitate liquidation process. In view of the above background and in order to get the closure of assessment proceedings on an accelerated basis, the assessee company suo-moto accepted the disallowances made by DCIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi. The same was accepted by the assessee company so as to avoid consequent compliance cost to the assessee company and in view of the substantial past losses which would eventually lapse going forward. Therefore, the assessee company did not prefer t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e two additions as ambiguous, we fully concur with the submission of the Id. AR that while recording his satisfaction in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer on both the additions i.e. ₹ 1,21,09,120/- and ₹ 66,24,284/- has stated as I am satisfied that the assessee company has concealed the particulars of income / submitted wrong particulars of its income, therefore, penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated on this account and . I am satisfied that assessee company concealed the income / filed inaccurate particulars, hence penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the I. T. Act have been initiated separately respectively. Again in the penalty order the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment proceedings. There may be several reasons for nonfurnishing of evidence in support, especially when the details of the parties and payment are furnished. Thus, non-furnishing of evidence in support of the claim may be a good reason for disallowance of such claim, but it cannot always lead to the conclusion beyond doubt that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee towards such claim. In the case of CIT Vs. Udaipur Hotels Ltd. (supra) the Hon ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to hold that in a case where expenditure was disallowed due to non-availability of supporting evidence, it could not be held as concealment of income and, therefore, penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
