TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars - HELD THAT:- assessee explained the situation to the best possible manner pleaded bonafide. Such explanation was not found false by the Learned AO. The materials relating to returned income was duly disclosed before the Learned AO. At that relevant point of time, there was no iota of evidence of concealment of any fact relating to particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, attract the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In that view of the matter the penalty order was rightly deleted by the Learned CIT(A). - decided in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation of ₹ 1,21,63,139/- and ₹ 5,90,37,630/- pertains to the amalgamating company namely Vini Sales Distribution Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. The Learned AO with the view that the assessee company was not liable to carry forward loss as per the provision of Section 72A(2) of the Act as amalgamation company was not in the business for a period of three years asked for explanation from the appellant. In reply whereof, the assessee accepted the loss of the said amalgamating company VSDPL relating to A.Y. 2010-11 of ₹ 1,21,63,139/- as not allowable. The assessee thereafter suo moto withdrew the claim of the said amount of ₹ 1,21,63,139/-. A revised re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the facts are correctly mentioned was duly submitted before the Learned AO. Subsequently, such claim of brought forward and carried forward losses of amalgamating company VSDPL has been withdrawn by the assessee. Therefore, it is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars neither of concealment of income by the assessee. Rather this is only an excess claim on brought forward and carried forward loss made by the assessee details whereof was filed with the return but without disturbing the returned loss. Penalty therefore, is not sustainable in the eye of law as argued by the Learned AR. He, thus, relied upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting such penalty. On the other hand, Learned DR relied upon the order passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The company is incorporated on 07.11.2009. Hence, this is not applicable. In view of the above the company has already withdrawn the claim of unabsorbed business loss and unabsorbed depreciation of VSDPL prior to the appointed dated vide our letter which was submitted to you on 06.02.2015. The copy of revised return is also before us filed by the assessee. However, with the following observation the Learned AO levied the penalty: Disallowance of ciairn of loss u/s. 72A. M/s. Vini Sales Distribution Pvt. Ltd. (VSOPL) was amalgamated with the Assessee company as per the scheme of arrangement of amalgamation sanctioned the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 23.03.2012 w.e.f. 01.04.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concealment is not essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as the case in the matter of prosecution u/s.276C of the Act. 5. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the assessee has committed default of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, which attracts penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of ₹ 1,21,63,139/- Therefore, minimum penalty leviable @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded comes to ₹ 39,46,331/- and maximum penalty @300% of tax sought to be evaded comes to ₹ 1,18,38,993/- Therefore, looking to the facts of the case, I hereby direct the assessee to pay minimum penalty of ₹ 39, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be imposed. The judgment cited by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Price Water House Cooper Pvt. Ltd.-vs-CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) was also relied upon. It appears from the records that the assessee explained the situation to the best possible manner pleaded bonafide. Such explanation was not found false by the Learned AO. The materials relating to returned income was duly disclosed before the Learned AO. At that relevant point of time, there was no iota of evidence of concealment of any fact relating to particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, attract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
