2009 (8) TMI 1155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso disclosed agriculture income of ₹ 3,00,000/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 20-02-2006 at an income of ₹ 7,98,160/- by treating ₹ 2,82,000/- out of the agriculture income of ₹ 3,00,000/- shown by the assessee as income from other sources. In appeal, the Learned CIT(Appeals) restricted the disallowance from out ITA No.1433/Ahd/2009 Shri. Natubhai Naranbhai Virani Asst.Year -2003-04 of agriculture income at ₹ 1,00,000/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of ₹ 31,500/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. This was also confirmed in appeal by the Learned CIT (Appeals) following the decision of the Honorable Supreme C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and not ₹ 3,00,000/- and made addition of ₹ 2,82,000/- under the head "other source" of income. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted the same to ₹ 1,00,000/-. Thus, there is no finding to the effect that the assessee has concealed his income or has filed inaccurate particulars of his income. Further, the Assessing Officer has estimated the agriculture income of the assessee at ₹ 18,000/- and the ld. CIT(Appeals) estimated at ₹ 2,00,000/-. Thus, addition was made on the basis of estimation only and therefore, the levy of penalty is not justified. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed before us that even if the set- off of capital loss against business profits was by negligence or mistake, the fact remains that the particulars of income furnished were not correct and willful concealment not being an essential requirement for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)( c) as held by the Supreme Court in UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277, penalty could not be deleted. We find that similar argument was made by the Revenue in the case of CIT vs. M/s Sidhartha Enterprises and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court rejecting the plea held : "The judgment in Dharmendra Textile cannot be read as laying down that in every case where particulars of income are inaccurate, penalty must follow. What has been laid down is t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso carefully went though the detailed submission as made by the Ld. Authorised Representative and the judicial decision taken into consideration by him in support of his contentions. After analyzing the facts, it is found that the report of the Directorate of Agriculture, Gujarat State was with regard to the forecast of production of various crops in the Gujarat State and the same cannot be taken as a final parameter for finding out the yield per hector with respect to a particular crop in a particular district of the State. In this regard, the submission as made by the Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee that the production/yield in the case of a particular crop may vary from place to place depending upon the nature of seeds and....