TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 41(1) of the Act neither in the Return filed under Section 139 (1) nor in the Return filed in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act Held that:- the dispute between the parties is purely a dispute of facts. We do not find any substantial question of law in the present appeal. - Decided against the revenue. - ITA No.99/2017 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2018 - SHRI P.K. JAISWAL AND SHRI VIRENDER SINGH JJ. Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned counsel for the respondent. JUDGEMENT Per: Virender Singh, J. 1. Challenging the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 14.03.2017, passed in ITA No.658/IND/2013 whereby the learned Appellate Tribunal confirmed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest waived off by the bank as ₹ 1,51,25,582/-. An assessment order under Section 147/143(3) was passed by the AO on 16.12.2010 determining the total income of ₹ 1,45,08,299/- after set off the loss incurred of ₹ 6,17,283/-. This order was never challenged by respondent. 3. While passing the order of assessment, the A.O. observed that the assessee has not furnished bifurcation of principal and interest amount in the total amount waived off by the bank and has claimed the entire amount as principal amount without giving any details, which tantamount of furnishing of incorrect particulars of income especially in view of Section 41(1) of the Act, 2013. In reply to the Notice issued by the A.O., the assessee claimed that as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds the principal amount or towards interest and there was no clarity from such letter as to which amount was waived off by the bank, therefore, the assessee can not be held liable to furnish inaccurate information and set aside the penalty imposed by the AO. The order was confirmed by the ITAT in the appeal preferred by the revenue vide order dated 14.03.2017. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revenue/appellant has submitted that the question as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is not leviable on the basis of addition made under Section 41(1) of the I.T. Act and the findings recorded in the assessment order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement was made deliberately or there was deliberate concealment of fact, therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, 2013 can not be imposed. Almost similar factual position appears in the present case. The circumstances, in which required particulars could be supplied by the assessee were not under his control, therefore, both the learned authorities CIT (appeals) I as well as the ITAT rightly exonerated the assessee from the impugned liability. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the dispute between the parties is purely a dispute of facts. We do not find any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Therefore, the same is dismissed hereby. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
