AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....king additions on account of provision for retention and power cost amounting to Rs. 2,80,72,176/- and provision for liquidated damage amounting to Rs. 30,00,000/-. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment the additions were confirmed order dated 18.03.2011. The assessing officer initiated penalty proceeding for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income on both the disallowances. The Assessing Officer passed the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 28.03.2013 levying the penalty of Rs. 1,04,58,890/-. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order recorded that the assessee was given opportunity vide notice dated 07.12.2012. The assessee neither filed any submissions nor attended the proceedings the assessing officer levied penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded on such disallowance. On further appeal before, ld CIT(A) the entire penalty was deleted. Thus, aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) the assessing Officer/ revenue has filed the present appeal before us. 3. The revenue has raised sole ground of appeal that the ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. We have heard the su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are minimum opinion on the part of the assessing officer that a case for initiation of penalty proceeding was made as there was concealment of income or that incorrect particulars had been furnished by the appellant with the intention to avoid payment of taxes. 6. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessing officer relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510(Delhi). The decision of Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication (P) Ltd (supra) is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. In Zoom Communication (P) Ltd (supra) the assessee in that case debited the administrative and other expenses under the head "equipment written off" and other sum of Rs. 1.00 lacks was also debited under the head "income tax paid", thus, clearly inaccurate particular of income was furnished. The ld AR for the assessee relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in Tristar Intech P Ltd Vs ACIT [2015] 43 ITR( Trib) 279 ( Delhi). 7. In alternative submissions the ld AR submits that he has filed additional paper book and placed on record the copy of notice issued by assessing officer under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c), wherein the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar under reference. There was no concealment of income at all. We are of the further view that it was just a clear cut case of difference of opinion between the assessee and the assessing officer. 10. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made the similar submission as made before us. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the assessment order, penalty order passed by Assessing Officer and its submission deleted the penalty while making the following order: "6. I have carefully perused the assessment order of the AO and the submissions made by the AR in support of his arguments. After taking into consideration, the AO's findings and the appellant's oral and written submissions made during the course of hearing as well as facts of the case, decision on various grounds are adjudicated as under: 6.1 Although appellant has raised 5 grounds of appeal the only effective ground is against levy of penalty of Rs. 1,04,58,890/ - u/ s.271(l)(c) of the Act. The appellant company filed its return of income on 27.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 2,94,00,307/ -. The case was selected for scrutiny and an order u/ s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed by the Ld. A.O. on 23.12.2009 b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn of income accompanied by P & L A/c. for the year ending on 31.03.2007 and Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2007. According to the appellant, A.O. did not find any fault in the figures provided by the appellant in its P & L A/c. and Balance Sheet. It was further contended that all the accounts of the appellant company were audited by a reputed firm and professionally qualified C.A. who did not pointed out any defects in the accounts maintained by the appellant company. In the audit report duly certified and signed by a professional firm, no remarks regarding disallowability of provisions were given by the auditors of the company. It was claimed that after the advice of experts, the appellant company was under a bonafide belief that claim of provisions made in the Balance Sheet were allowable claims. It was argued that there was no justification for imposing penalty when appellant had disclosed all the facts m the audited statement of accounts for the year under reference and no qualification to that effect has been mentioned in the audit report of the appellant by the statutory auditors. In support of its claim a copy of the tax audit report was produced for verification. In support o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....advertent mistake penalty u/s.271(1)(c) should not be imposed. In that case, assessee's explanation that mistake was due to advice of chartered accountant published in prospectus about the allowability of claim was found to be not inadvertent. 8. In both the assessment and penalty proceedings, assessee's tax consultant appeared and furnished the above explanation which indicates that the mistake originated from, the side of tax consultant. In the given facts and circumstances, the assessee's claim of inadvertent error cannot be ruled out. Relying on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. and Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgement in the case of Escorts Finance Ltd. we hold that the assessee's claim of inadvertent error on the part of the income tax return consultant cannot be found to be implausible looking at the low amount of tax involved and facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the above, we delete the penalty." The Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in ITA No.1332 of 2011 in the case of CIT-l vs. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. held as under: In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. On further appeal, th....