AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 949
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,00,000/- disregarding the contentions of the appellant that the assessee has claimed the amount of deduction of Rs. 10 lacs fully disclosing the facts in the Profits & Loss Account under the bonafide belief that it is allowable." 3. The assessee company is engaged in the manufacture and export of meat. It filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 4,93,01,240/-. The assessment was made at Rs. 5,04,92,200/-. The assessee in its Profit & Loss Account has claimed loss of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of forfeiture of advance for land. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said claim on the ground that the loss was in the nature of capital loss and not an item of revenue expenditure. The assessee has also claimed wealth-tax liability of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t other, it was submitted that merely that the assessee has not filed an appeal against the Assessment Order, does not lead to an inference that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the additions made, Amongst other, the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs, Reliance Petro Products Ltd. 322 ITR 158 was also referred to and relied upon by the assessee. These principles were reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1TO v. Rama Natba Gadhavi 2G17-TIOL-98- SC-IT. Similar submissions were made with respect to the other additions. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer levied the penalty by holding that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xplanation 1, the assessee is deemed to have concealed the particulars of its income and furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of additions made if the explanation given by the assessee remains unsubstantiated. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has mechanically initiated the penalty proceedings without specifying the exact charge upon which the proceedings were initiated by him by not striking of the inappropriate portion in the statutory notice issued u/s 2.74 r.w.s. 271 of the Income Tax Act. A copy of this notice issued by the Assessing Officer on completion of assessments dated 28.06.2012 was produced by the Ld. AR at the time of hearing. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Veer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-ITAT-Delhi. The Ld. AR also referred some of the relevant judgments that are: (i) DC IT v, Roger Enterprises Ltd. 2012-TIOL-515 ITAT-Delhi (ii) DCIT v. Saraya Industries 104 TTJ 213 (Delhi). The Ld. AR submitted that no faults have been found in the explanation offered by the assessee. Therefore, Explanation 1 to section 271(1 )(c) has no application on the facts of the assessee's ease and the learned CIT(A)' s reference on Explanation 1 to section 271(l)(c) is totally misplaced and legally not maintainable. As regards the claim of Wealth Tax liability, the Ld. AR submitted that this claim was due to an inadvertent and bonafide error on the part of the assessee, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the notice dated 28/06/2012 has not given the specific limb under which penalty has been imposed. Thus, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of SSA's Emerald (Supra) is applicable in assessee's case. Further, on merit also the contention of the assessee that the claims of the assessee were genuine and there are two opinions about the allowability of those claims found some force. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd.(Supra) is as the bonafide mistake is always allowable mistake and the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty....