TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to Rs. 8.50 lacs. None was present on behalf of the assessee. However, with the help of Ld. D.R. and the material placed on file, we arrived at a conclusion that the matter can be disposed off without presence of Ld. A.R. Therefore, adjournment application filed by assessee/Ld. A.R. was rejected and Ld. D.R. was heard on merits. 2. Ld. D.R. submitted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the case law of CIT v. Zoom Communications 370 ITR 512 and, therefore the penalty needs to be upheld. 3. We have heard Ld. D.R. and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that the assessee is a cooperative society engaged in manufacture of cotton yarn. The A.O. during assessment proceedings observed that the amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and furnished by the assessee in course of the assessment proceedings and it was not a result of any detection of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It was also stated that the assessee held a bonafide belief based on the advice of the counsel that the deduction of salary and wages of various employees did not constitute income but was a liability dischargeable by the assessee. To explain the meaning of word 'concealment', the AR has referred to the discussion made in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT, 291 ITR 519 (SC). It has been argued that the word 'conceal' has been discussed by the Apex Court as under:- "53. The expression "conceal" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....particulars. I would also like to refer to the fact here that any reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT, 291 ITR 519 does not help at all because the same has been disapproved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Others (2008), 306 ITR 277. The AR's reliance on the plethora of case laws which have been cited in his written submission also are of no help and worthy of discussion in view of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food P. Ltd., (2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC) have overruled the judgment in the case of Virtual Soft Systems Limited v. CIT, (2007)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt of Rs. 21,64,370/- is disallowable u/s. 43B and the same is disallowed and added to the total income." 5. From the above findings of A.O., we find that the fact regarding nonpayment of such dues to the Government account were obtained by A.O. from the documents accompanying income tax return only and A.O. had not detected any concealed income of the assessee. Full particulars regarding statutory payment to be made were disclosed in the return of income therefore, we hold that assessee had not concealed particulars of income and had not furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Mere wrong claim made by assessee cannot amount to concealment of income. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products held as under: ....