TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or assessment 2003-04 are reproduced as under: "That, Ld CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the facts that the Assessee is a federation of oil companies of the Government of India (PSU) and the same is for the purpose of promotion of sports. None of office bearer would be interested in evading tax. It had accidently misinterpreted provision of law but disclosed all the facts in the Computation of Income. There was no intention to make bogus claim of exemption. That the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bona fide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars of the same. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that mistake is bonafide and there was no intention to evade tax or claim exemption. Thus, CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 3,43,215/- imposed by the Assessee Officer. It is, therefore, prayed that appeal may please be allowed. 3. In ITA No. 4148/del/2015 and ITA No. 4149/del/2015 the amount of Rs. 9, 93, 603/-and Rs. 3, 98, 862/-is involved. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case as culled out from the order of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore us, the Ld. Counsel submitted that in all the three assessment years involved identical orders have been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) except change of amount. The Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee is a charitable institution engaged in promotion of the sports among the employees of the petroleum companies and there was no intention to evade any tax and the assessee has always enjoyed the benefit of the exemption except the three years involved. The Ld. Counsel relied on the submission made before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel further submitted that office bearer in the society would not be interested in evading tax and it had accidentally misinterpreted provisions of the law but all the facts in the computation of income were disclosed. He further submitted that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to make bogus claim of the exemption. According to him it was an inadvertent error and not intended to conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, he submitted that penalty levied in all the three years might be deleted. 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand, submitted that the assessee was aware of the fact that it was not registered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l send a wrong message to the public at large. 4.8 So the explanation of the assessee is not bona-fide and is net satisfactory and the assessee cannot be allowed the benefit of Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c). 4.9 I have considered the order of the AD and the submissions of the assessee and I do not find any merit in the submissions of the assessee. It is apparent from the order of the AO that the assessee made the wrong claim of exemption u/s 11(1) without having any legal claim for this and as such filed the wrong or inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c). 4.10 The assessee has not been able to put forward any satisfactory explanation for non-levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In my view, the case of the assessee clearly attracts the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as no satisfactory explanation has been put forward by the assessee. The case of the assessee is fully covered against the assessee in the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I. Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) [2008] in which it has been held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with its explanations is a civil liability an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Vs Harprasad & Company ltd, 328 ITR 53 (Del) [2010] has held that if the assessee fails to submit the satisfactory explanation the AO will be justified to levy the penalty and held :- "............ that the reasons given by the Tribunal for quashing the penalty proceedings were irrelevant, not germane to the issue and the Tribunal had lost sight of aspects which had been conclusively established in the quantum proceedings. The Tribunal had failed to take note of the fact that part of the claim as commission was allowed to the assessee not because R had rendered any services but because I had rendered services for which it was paid 1 per cent of the commission by R out of the 3 per cent received by her. As far as commission to R was concerned, it was accepted by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings that she did not render any services at all. The assessee had failed to offer any explanation in respect of the addition of Rs. 1,83,078 and it could be deemed to have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, by virtue of this explanation. The Tribunal was not justified in deleting the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer ....