TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw and facts in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. (SC) 304 ITR 308 (2008) where in it has been held by the Apex Court that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied even if after addition of concealed income, there was no positive income. 2. The appellant craves to add or to amend the grounds of appeal before the Appeal is heard and disposed off. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a federation having Cooperative Societies as its members and is trading in general items and medicines and is also running a rice sheller. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) the A.O. observed that the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preferred any appeal against the said order. It was also submitted that the claim of the excess loss was on account of a benafide mistake committed at the time of preparation of return and the assessee should not be penalized for the same. To prove the bonafide, it was also submitted that the assessed income as well as the returned income, both being losses, the intention of the assessee could not be to defraud revenue. Further it was also submitted that there was no false explanation or particulars submitted by the assessee. All facts relating to the case were duly disclosed. It was submitted that the penalty was levied simply because there was disallowance in the assessment order and as a matter of routine only. The assessee relied on a n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that assessee has concealed the particulars of income and inaccurate particulars of income were furnished deliberately. There is only disallowance of loss incurred during business, which did not amount to concealment by the assessee. The Ld. A.O nowhere observed that any false explanation or particulars were submitted by assessee. The return of income was having all the material facts in the shape of computation sheet in which all the facts were correctly mentioned. The explanation submitted by the assessee before the A.O. was not found false. The explanation offered by assessee was bonafide. All material to the computation of its total income was disclosed by it. During the assessment proceedings, nowhere it was found that there wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee has disclosed all particulars rightly before the AO. It is a case where a excess claim was made by the assessee in its return. Every disallowance or addition made by AO could not be the sole basis for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Assessee has pleaded bonafide, which gets strengthened by the fact that the particulars of brought forward loss were declared to revenue and as per AO, assessee could claim business losses of only eight years and assessee was dependent on legal advice only. The explanation offered by the assessee was therefore bonafide. It is a clear case of claim made by committing a bonafide mistake. 10. On a similar issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Cooper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT(2012) 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levied under section 271 (1)(c). Our view gets supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC), whereby it has been held as under: " as the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under s. 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the....