TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been initiated, are ambiguous. In assessment order dated 25.03.2013 while initiating penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction u/s.271(1)(c) without specifying charge for levy of penalty. However, while levying penalty, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, provisions of section 271(1)(c) are attracted. The manner in which satisfaction for initiating penalty u/s.271(1)(c) has been recorded suffers from ambiguity and vagueness. Therefore, penalty levied u/s.271(1) (c) of the Act is liable to be deleted on this account as well. - Decided in favour of assessee. Allowance of claim of expenditure pertaining to preceding assessment year - Held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. It appears that the assessee is not keen to defend the impugned orders. In such circumstances, we are proceeding to decide the appeals with the assistance of ld. DR and the material available on record. We will first take up the appeal of Revenue in ITA No. 121/PUN/2017 for assessment year 2010-11. ITA No. 121/PUN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 3. The Revenue has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur by raising following grounds: 1. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) following the decision of the ITAT in assessee's case for A.Y.2010-11 ignoring the fact that additional sugarcane price p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 2010-11 in ITA No.468/PN/2014 dated 29.01.2016. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of Assessing Officer dated 18.06.2014 levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and prayed for reversing the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. We have heard the submissions made by ld. DR and have perused the orders of Authorities below. The only issue raised in appeal is against deleting penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition of payment of excess cane price paid to farmers by assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under: 5. DECISION: I have carefully considered the matter. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cursory approach of the AO. A plain reading of the penalty order reveals that no finding of even the quantum of income, for which inaccurate particulars have been filed, is not mentioned. In the absence of the same, the very basis of determination of tax sought to be evaded is a mystery. The AO has made no efforts to point out how the appellant has filed inaccurate particulars vis-a-vis this issue or concealed his income. The AO simply repeated what the CIT(A) has stated in his appellate order and concluded that inaccurate particulars have been filed. In any case as the quantum itself has been deleted, there is no question of levy of penalty. I therefore cancel the penalty levied in this case. The ld. DR has failed to controv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case and law, whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim of expenditure pertaining to earlier year ignoring the facts as the assessee has been following the mercantile system of accountancy? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the CIT(A) was not justified in following decision of the ITAT in assessee's case for AY.2010-11 ignoring the fact that additional sugarcane price paid over and above the purchase price fixed by the Government is nothing but appropriation of profit which cannot be allowed as business expenditure. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of the appeal at the time of proceedings before the Tribunal which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year 2010-11 in ITA No.468/PN/2014. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessment year 2010-11 followed the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Exxon Mobil Lubricants (P) Ltd. reported as 328 ITR 17. The ld. DR has neither brought to our notice any contrary decision nor the ld. DR has pointed any difference between the nature of transaction in the assessment year under appeal and the assessment year 2010-11 for which the Tribunal has granted relief to the assessee. We do not find any error in the order of First Appellate Authority in allowing the appeal of assessee by following Tribunal s order. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
