9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,43,24,576/- levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without proper consideration and appreciation of the facts of the case and submission filed. In view of the facts of the case and elaborate submissions filed, the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned penalty of Rs. 1,43,24,576/- requires to be quashed/cancelled. 2. The appellant states that since complete details, submissions and explanation in respect of each of the items of additions/disallowances, for which penalty has been levied, having been submitted before the AO, no penalty was warranted u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied. After taking cognisance of the reply, the Assessing Officer held that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the assessee company had furnished inaccurate particulars of income with ulterior motive to the tune of Rs. 4,21,43,500/- and imposed penalty at Rs. 1,43,24,576/- under Section 271(1(c) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Penalty Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that from the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings of loss on Forex Derivatives treating it as speculative loss of Rs. 57,76,605/- and disallowance of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation loss of Rs. 68,96,702 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowance of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation loss which was claimed by the assessee as per the assessee's understanding. The advice given to the assessee by the Consultant cannot be termed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as envisaged under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for penalty provisions. The decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is categorically applicable in the assessee's case and, therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justifiable on the part of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the penalty is deleted.
8. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 28th August, 2024. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
