TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. That the impugned order is opposed to facts and law in so far as it is pre-judicial to the interests of the Appellant. General Ground 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of penalty passed by the Assessing officer and in doing so, Rs. 1,76,46,858 a. He failed to appreciate that the notice u/s 274 was issued by an officer other than the one who recorded satisfaction for levying penalty. b. Without prejudice to Ground No 2 (a) above and assuming without admitting that the proceedings were properly initiated and continued by the succeeding incumbent in office, the impugned penalty order is untenable and bad in law inasmuch as no intimation of change of incumbent was given to the Appellant and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e additional ground at any time before the appeal is disposed off. For these and such other grounds that may be adduced or removed in time to time, it is requested that the Hon'ble ITAT may be pleased to examine the case in the light of justice and grant the relief sought for." Rs. 1,76,46,858 Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is a trust registered under 12A and entitled for exemption under section 11 for the relevant year under consideration. It had filed its return of income declaring 'nil' income as the application of funds for charitable purposes exceeded the total receipts. The assessee incurred capital expenditure to the extent of Rs. 56,46,98,998/- and claimed depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 6. The Ld.CIT(A), upheld the order of the Ld.AO by rejecting the contentions of assessee. There was certain clerical error in the computation of penalty which was corrected by the Ld.CIT(A). 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 8. The Ld.AR submitted that penalty is initiated due to the difference in the opinion on the part of the Ld.AO regarding the nature of receipt in the hands of assessee's. He submitted that a mere difference of opinion for rejection of the claim made by assessee does not lead to the presumption that there is concealment furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Ld.A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us donation which was not accepted by the Ld.AO and treated it as income in the hands of assessee. Under both these additions made by the Ld.AO, there is no finding that these are bogus also the genuineness is not questioned by the Ld.AO. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2010) 322 ITR 158 held as under: "A glance of provision of section 271 (l) (c) would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The instant case was not the case of concealment of the income. That was not the case of the revenue either. It was an admitted pos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....closed all the particulars of his income. The Ld.AO has disallowed claim without holding it to be bogus or false. Thus, the genuineness of the claim is not in question here. Hon'ble Supreme Court while elaborating the scope of section 271(1)(c) in CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd [2010] 322 ITR 158 held that- "A glance of provision of section 271 (l) (c) would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The instant case was not the case of concealment of the income. That was not the case of the revenue either. It was an admitted position in the instant case that no information ....