TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a case where excess claim of carry forward losses was made by the assessee, which was disallowed by the A.O., since it was not as per law. The assessee did not challenge the said order of the A.O. and accepted the said assessment. It is not a case of concealment of income as the AO himself has picked up all facts and figures from the return of income and the details filed by the assessee. It is not also a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars, as the assessee has disclosed all particulars rightly before the AO. It is a case where a excess claim was made by the assessee in its return. Every disallowance or addition made by AO could not be the sole basis for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Assessee has pleaded bonafide, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 (2008) where in it has been held by the Apex Court that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied even if after addition of concealed income, there was no positive income. 2. The appellant craves to add or to amend the grounds of appeal before the Appeal is heard and disposed off. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a federation having Cooperative Societies as its members and is trading in general items and medicines and is also running a rice sheller. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) the A.O. observed that the assessee has claimed losses to be carried forward amounting to ₹ 1,05,65,084/- comprising of the current year loss of ₹ 12,96,392/- and losses brought forward from earlier years amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preparation of return and the assessee should not be penalized for the same. To prove the bonafide, it was also submitted that the assessed income as well as the returned income, both being losses, the intention of the assessee could not be to defraud revenue. Further it was also submitted that there was no false explanation or particulars submitted by the assessee. All facts relating to the case were duly disclosed. It was submitted that the penalty was levied simply because there was disallowance in the assessment order and as a matter of routine only. The assessee relied on a number of judgments also. 4. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the penalty, vide Page 5 para 4 of the CIT(A) order, holding as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business, which did not amount to concealment by the assessee. The Ld. A.O nowhere observed that any false explanation or particulars were submitted by assessee. The return of income was having all the material facts in the shape of computation sheet in which all the facts were correctly mentioned. The explanation submitted by the assessee before the A.O. was not found false. The explanation offered by assessee was bonafide. All material to the computation of its total income was disclosed by it. During the assessment proceedings, nowhere it was found that there was any concealment of any facts relating to particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In view of foregoing discussions and judicial pronouncements (supra) I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not be the sole basis for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Assessee has pleaded bonafide, which gets strengthened by the fact that the particulars of brought forward loss were declared to revenue and as per AO, assessee could claim business losses of only eight years and assessee was dependent on legal advice only. The explanation offered by the assessee was therefore bonafide. It is a clear case of claim made by committing a bonafide mistake. 10. On a similar issue the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Cooper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT(2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) held as under : 19. The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n held as under: as the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under s. 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under s. 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the leg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
