TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (12) TMI 517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee. The notice of hearing was served by the ITAT and the acknowledgement is available on record. In these facts, we proceed to decide the appeal of the Assessee, after hearing the ld. D.R. 3. The assessee has raised two grounds in its appeal wherein ground no.2 is general in nature and does not survive for adjudication. The ground no.1 is reproduced herein-below: "1. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming levy of penalty of Rs. 2,03,834/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act." 4. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 1,21,258/- on account of adjustment under section 145A of the Act , the disallowance of foreign travel expenses to the tune of Rs. 3,54,032/- and addition on account unexplained sundry creditors amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tc., in its return of income. The ld. CIT(A) further confirmed the order of the ld. A.O. 7. The ld. A.R. vehemently argued before us that the assessee was following the same method of accounting year after year and has not concealed any particulars of its income furnishing inaccurate particulars. He further submitted that no element of profit has escaped tax because the small discrepancy arising due to the method of accounting followed will be taxed in the subsequent year. The ld. A.R. placed reliance in the following cases and argued that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty and the same may be deleted. i) CIT-vs- Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. 297 ITR 77 (Del.) i) J.N.Parabia (Transport) (P) Ltd. -vs- DCIT 50 ITD 250 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... past - Not a fit case for levy of penalty." 9.1 Further, we have taken note to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited by the Ld.AR in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158 (S.C.), wherein it was held as under: "A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961, suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word 'particulars' used in section 271(1)(c) would embrance the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s foreign tour expenses of Mr. Murli Adnani, who was neither a Director nor an employee of the company. The assessee had clarified that Mr. Murli Adnani was a promoter/shareholder of the company and had sourced many buyers/suppliers for the company. He was helping the company in its business and the company had incurred these travel expenses of Mr. Murli Adnani for the purpose of business of the assessee company. However, ld. A.O. disbelieved the contention of the assessee and made the disallowance. This disallowance of expenses was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and the ITAT. Ld. A.O. thereafter levied penalty on this addition invoking section 271(1)(c) of the Act which was subsequently confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 11. The ld. A.R. forcefu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y creditors are outstanding balance and are pending for more than last 3 years. The assessee was not able to establish the genuineness of these sundry creditors. Addition was made on account of the same which were confirmed by both the appellate authorities and penalty was imposed by the Ld. AO, which was sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 15. Ld. A.R. explained that these sundry creditors were beyond three years and substantial information regarding the identity of these creditors was difficult to be established at this stage. Therefore, it was prayed that though the addition made on this issue had merits, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty and the same may be deleted. 16. The ld. D.R. vehemently opposed to the submissions of the ld.....