TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT upholds deletion of penalty for consistent valuation method</h1> <h3>Dy. CIT, Cir-(1), Hyderabad. Versus M/s. AVC Housing Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Dy. CIT, Cir-(1), Hyderabad. Versus M/s. AVC Housing Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:- Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.Analysis:1. The Revenue appealed against the CIT (A)'s order deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2003-04.2. The primary issue was whether the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.3. The AO initiated penalty proceedings based on additions made to the assessment, including valuation of closing stock, disallowance u/s 40A(3), and unexplained expenditure u/s 69.4. The assessee contended that the valuation of closing stock was consistently done based on earlier years' figures and method accepted by the department.5. The CIT (A) found discrepancies in the AO's valuation method for the closing stock, concluding that it did not reflect the correct income of the assessee for the relevant year.6. Regarding disallowance u/s 40A(3) and expenditure on stamp duty, the CIT (A) held that these additions did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.7. The Revenue argued that since the assessee did not challenge the additions, penalty imposition was justified.8. The assessee maintained that the additions were accepted to avoid disputes, not as an admission of furnishing inaccurate particulars.9. The ITAT observed that the AO's valuation method for closing stock was flawed, and the consistent method followed by the assessee did not indicate inaccurate particulars of income.10. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the penalty, citing that acceptance of additions does not imply concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) based on valid reasons and the consistent valuation method employed by the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
