TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 732
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he I.T. Act, 1961. 2. I have heard the Ld. Representatives of both the Parties and perused the material on record. The Ld. Representatives of both the Parties argued in A.Y. 2009-2010 and have submitted that issues are same in the remaining appeal for the A.Y. 2011-2012. The appeal for A.Y. 2009-2010 is decided as under. ITA.No.2662/Del./2017 - A.Y. 2009-2010 : 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring income of Rs. 4,70,490. During the course of assessment proceedings for subsequent A.Y. 2010-2011 in the case of the assessee, it was observed that assessee is continuously claiming interest expenses on loan taken from various financial institutions, but, while paying the int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts and also noted that assessee declared additional income of Rs. 31,88,093 in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee has declared the additional income when same income was unearthed by the department. The A.O. accordingly, levied the penalty on this addition. The assessee challenged the penalty order before the Ld. CIT(A). the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee for nonprosecution as well as on merit as well. 4. I have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to PB-34 which is the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty dated 30th December, 2014 in which the A.O. has mentioned that "have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccura....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the penalty had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). The departmental appeal was accordingly, dismissed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows in SLP (CC) No.11485 of 2016 vide judgment dated 5th August, 2016, dismissed the departmental SLP. In view of the above, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and cancel the penalty. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee on merit also submitted that A.O. recorded the reasons for reopening of the assessment vide reason....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upon the orders of the authorities below. 9. Since, I have already set aside the orders of the authorities below on the reasons noted above by following the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, therefore, there is nothing to discuss on this issue in detail on merits. However, it is a fact that in the reasons for reopening of the assessment, A.O. has mentioned a very small amount of interest of Rs. 61,063. Therefore, even the A.O. was not aware of the exact amount to the extent of which income has escaped assessment. The A.O. merely on vague and inaccurate figure reopened the assessment. Therefore, nothing could be detected against the assessee specifically at the stage of reopening of the assessment. The assessee when received notice....