2016 (2) TMI 45

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2 Mr. Pinto, learned counsel for the Revenue presses only the following two questions for our consideration:- (1): "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct upholding the action of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalty when a claim for business loss was made in the return and the loss was disallowed by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings? (2): "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was incorrect in ignoring the provisions of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) wherein it is provided where a loss has been reduced, it would also amount to deemed concealment? 3. Regarding Question 1: (a) On 31st March, 2010 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....posed. However, notwithstanding above, the Assessing Officer held that the Respondent had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the Assessing Officer and concealed its income inviting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, by order dated 28th April 2011 the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded i.e. Rs. 1.33 Crores (on Rs. 3.92 Crores being the loss/expenditure disallowed). (c) In Appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), by order dated 20th September, 2011 allowed Respondent- Asessee's Appeal inter alia holding that this was not case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing of income on the part of the Respondent-Assessee so as to invo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondent had not claimed any set off or loss carried forward from the earlier assessment years. In the above view, the Appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. (d) Mr. Pinto, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the order imposing penalty by the Assessing Officer ought not to have been disturbed. This is so as the Respondent-Assessee had in its return of income filed for the subject assessment year had shown carry forward loss by claiming expenditure which had been disallowed. (e) We find that the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently reached a finding of fact that the Respondent had not claimed any carry forward loss either in the return which he has filed for the subject assessment year or in the subsequent assessment ye....