2015 (2) TMI 1247

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in deleting the penalty of Rs. 57,12,718/- made by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, on account of disallowance of prior period expenses. 2. The appellant crave, leave to add, amend, alter, forego or delete any ground of appeal before at or before the time of hearing." 3. The aforesaid appeal came up for hearing before the Bench on 10.2.2015. Inspite of notice to the assessee by RPAD, Assessee, neither its any authorized representative was appeared to represent the case nor any adjournment application is filed by the assessee. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by again and again sending the notice to the assessee and therefore, we are deci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s made by him and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income with a view to willfully evade taxes. Accordingly, the AO vide his order dated 30.3.2012 has imposed the penalty of Rs. 57,12,718/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 5. Against the penalty order of the Assessing Officer, Asseessee appealed before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who vide impugned order 31.5.2013 has partly allowed the appeal of the assesee by deleting the penalty of Rs. 57,12,718/- made u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act imposed by the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 31.5.2013, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. At the time of hearing Ld. Departmental Representative has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ide or conceal the income so as to avoid the imposition of tax thereon. There was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars for concealing of income." 8.1 We find that Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee has quoted various case laws which are in its favor. One of the cases squarely applicable is of Hero Honda Motors Limited vs. DCIT passed in ITA No. 2698/Del/2010 by the ITAT, Delhi Benches, Delhi. The ITAT states:- "The stand taken by the assessee at the time of filing of return of income was a possible and plausible view and therefore, the penalty is not justified. The judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Limited (322 ITR 158) also supports the case of the assessee because in that case i....