TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engaged in financial services such as leasing and hire purchase finance and it is beyond one's apprehension that in their returns, they inadvertently included the sum incurred for land up-keep expenses and debited to the profit and loss account. There is nothing on record to show that the inclusion of the said sum under the head 'administrative and other expenses' was an inadvertent error. Furthermore, the assessee was unable to substantiate their stand before the CIT (A) that there was an attempt to file revised returns. Thus, the Authorities below as well as the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that penalty was leviable on the assessee. - Decided against assessee - Tax Case Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;, which was included under 'administrative and other expenses' and the same was stated to have been incurred for land up-keep. 6. The Assessing Officer called for details from the assessee, who, on so being called for, admitted that the expenses were non business expenses and requested the Assessing Officer to disallow the same. Accordingly, the said sum was added to the income. Subsequently, a notice for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued, for which, the assessee submitted a detailed reply dated 17.4.1992. The reply of the assessee was considered. However, the proposal in the show cause notice was confirmed and penalty was imposed. 7. The assessee carried the matter on appeal to the Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer. However, we find that there was no such stand taken before the Assessing Officer and that the stand taken for the first time before the CIT (A) had not been established. Because of the factual position, the CIT (A) rejected the appeal. Again on appeal by the assessee, this was confirmed by the Tribunal by taking note of the factual position that only after the Assessing Officer pointed out the same, the assessee agreed for the disallowance and added the amount to their income. On facts, we find that all the three Authorities below have concurrently held against the assessee. 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has referred to the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Sri Saradha Textile Processo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee cannot be termed to be an inadvertent or bona fide error. Furthermore, this aspect, being a factual aspect and having been considered by both the Authorities below as well as the Tribunal, cannot be upset by this Court in an appeal filed by the assessee wherein the decision shall be on a substantial question of law. Therefore, this decision does not render much assistance to the case of the assessee. 15. Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [reported in (2010) 322 ITR 0158] wherein the ratio laid down in the said decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that merely because the assessee claimed deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [reported in (2008) 300 ITR 0342] wherein it has been held that the conduct of the assessee in withdrawing the unmerited deduction by filing a revised return subsequent to the survey under Section 133A of the Act was a case where penalty was leviable. 19. Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [reported in (2015) 373 ITR 0346] wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that by cogent and relatable evidence, the assessee should first show that there was neither concealment of particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income in order to avoid penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 20. Further reliance is placed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
