TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case in confirming a penalty order of Rs. 47,40,699 on the Appellant for the subject assessment year u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act summarily and without appreciating that no concealment of any facts/income was made by the Appellant. Hence, the penalty order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and the penalty is liable to be quashed or deleted. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in levying penalty in the present case since mere acceptance of the disallowance by the Appellant does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and more particularly on account of the fact that the Appellant had suo-moto accepted the disallowance and decided not to file any appeal with the ITAT to avoid genuine hardship, miti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oss of Rs. 55,44,09,599/-. Later, the assessee company revised its return of income on 28th March 2013 declaring a total loss of Rs. 54,14,79,557/-. Subsequently, the return was taken up for scrutiny vide notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). For AY 2011-12, since the assessee company entered into international transactions with its associated enterprises, the case was referred to the Additional CIT, TPO 1(1), New Delhi ("TPO") for determination of ALP u/s 92CA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the TPO vide its order dated 27th January 2015 passed u/s 92CA(1) of the Act directed the DCIT, Circle 5(2) to enhance the income of the assessee company by Rs. 1,39,47,334/-. During the course of assessment pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 04th January 2018. Therefore, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company had accumulated substantial losses of INR 75.52 Crores as of 1st April 2010 which remained unutilized because of no profits. The Ld. AR further submitted that the disallowances made represent just 1% of the expenses which is highly immaterial with the nature of business and expenses incurred by the company. The assessee company has decided to close down its business operations in India (approved by the shareholders in the extraordinary general meeting held on 7th July 2014). In pursuance of this, the assessee company already undertook significant steps. The assessee company was supposed to voluntari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... own case being ITA no. 5504/Del/2016 order dated 04.09.2017. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the penalty order and the order of the CIT(A), but could not controvert the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant material available on record. The Ld. AR submitted that this issue contested, in the present case has already been decided in favour of the assessee by Tribunal's decision in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2010-11. The Tribunal held as under :- "3.5 Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon, we find that penalty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty for concealment of income / furnishing inaccurate particulars of excess loss to the tune of Rs. 1,87,33,404/- as per provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961." The Honhle Gujarat High Court in its above cited decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Jyoti Ltd. (supra) and CIT Vs. Whiteford India Ltd. (supra) has been pleased to hold that wdiere no clear finding was recorded by Assessing Officer whether assessee was guilty of concealing income and / or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, Tribunal was justified in deleting penalty under section 271(l)(c) levied by the Assessing Officer. Respectfully following the ratio of these cited decisions, we hold that in the present case, the authorities below were not justified in impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould not be said to have made a wrong claim by furnishing inaccurate particulars attracting penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. On page No. 1 in para No. 3 of the penalty order, the Assessing Officer has reproduced the names of the parties to whom the payments claimed to have been made by the assessee and by furnishing affidavit, TDS Certificates in support of payment of Rs. 20,34,023/-, Tax Audit Report for the year as well as Form No. 3CBE for the year the assessee had explained that 'NIL' TDS demand was there. It is not the case of the Revenue that these informations were false. We are thus of the view that in absence of positive evidence that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars the....