AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t'], vide order dated 21.09.2015 for the assessment year (AY) 2012-13. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts to confirm penalty of Rs. 2,75,260/-u/s 271(1)(c). 2. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts to confirm levy of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars whereas it was initiated for concealment of particulars of income & erred in law & facts to confirm levy of penalty when no specific charge was fixed in show cause notice against the appellant. 3.The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts to confirm the penalty where penalty was levied without describing and reaching to the conclusion that there is furnishing of inaccurate particulars for concealm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rved upon the assessee on 10.03.2015. The assessee filed its reply dated 11.04.2015 and again on 15.09.2015. The AO noted that the contents of both the reply are same. The assessee in its reply stated that one of the party namely Mesto Mineral (India) Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. has given discount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the year 2011-12. The credit Note was issued by the said parties but the same was not received by assessee. It was further explained that in earlier submission, the assessee submitted a difference of Rs. 1,09,191/-. The credit note given by said party was not considered by Accountant while finalising the accounts. Therefore, he has carried forward the balance. It was further examined that the assessee is doing regular business with the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submission of ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has two fold submissions, firstly on the legal and technical issue and secondly on merits of the case. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessing officer while passing the assessment order initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars, however, at the time of passing the penalty is was levied for furnishing inaccurate particular of income as well as for concealing the income. Thus, the penalty was levied without application of min....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions were basically made as the assessee could not prove that the assessee had not made purchases. The error occurred in the accounts was not intentional or melafide, the assessee had not furnished accurate particulars nor concealed the income. To support his submissions the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following decisions; * National Textile Vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 125, * Mukeshchandra A Lakdawala Vs ITO (2010) 0004 ITR 307 (Trib), * CIT Vs Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd (2013) 054 (I) ITCL 0019 and * Price Water Cooper Private Limited Vs CIT [CA No. 6924 of 2012 of Supreme Court]. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. DR for the revenue further submits ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorities. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by the ld. AR for the assessee and the written submissions filed by the assessee. The assessing officer at the time of passing assessment order made additions Rs. 8,90,808/-, on account of difference of irreconcilable sundry creditors by taking view that on show cause, the assessee could not explain the said difference and initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Before levying the penalty the assessing officer issued show cause notice to the assessee. The assessee in its reply stated that one of the party namely Mesto Mineral (India) Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. has given discount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the year 2011-12. The credit Note was issued by the said parties but th....