TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment Year 2005-06. 2. At the outset we note that there was delay of 30 days in filling the appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR for the assessee before us explained the reason for such delay by stating that the employee of the tax advocate was provided the necessary details to file the appeal but he failed to inform his employer and thus the delay occurred in filing the appeal which needs to be condoned. 3. The learned DR at the time of hearing, considering the length of delay did not oppose on the condonation petition filed by the assesse. 4. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Considering the length of delay and the explanation furnished by the learned AR f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The necessary facts are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of trading and export. During the assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act the AO made various additions to the total income of the assessee and initiate penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Out of the total addition made by the AO, the learned CIT(A) in quantum appeal confirmed following addition only: Made on a/c of disallowance of interest u/s.40A(20(b) Rs.5,51,313/- Made on a/c of capital expenditure Rs.18,745/- Made on a/c of non verified expenses Rs.13,100/- Made on a/c. of personal expenses Rs.18,100/- Made on a/c. of excess depreciation Rs.10,208/- T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income for Rs. 6,86,466/-. 11. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 107 and inter alia contended that the assessee has furnished all the particulars of the claim made in the return of income but some of them were not admitted by the authorities below. However, the claims not admitted by the authorities below at the most can be regarded as wrong claim which cannot be equated with the concealment of the particulars of income. 13. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 14. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the material availab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of income. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Reliance Petroproducts Pvt .Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158 where it was held as under: If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 14.2 Coming to the case on hand, the first addition/disallowances made during the quantum proceeding is of interest expenses which was considered as excessive by the Revenue authority. Accordingly, the Revenue authority estimated the reasonable interest as per market and made disallowanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....timation of reasonable rate of interest. As such the assessee paid interest at different rate, the AO estimated different and the learned CIT-A further estimated different rate of interest. It settled position of law by the various High Court that the no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be sustained in case of estimated addition. At this juncture we feel pertinent to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT v. Norton Electronics System Pvt. Ltd [2014] 41 taxamm.com 280 [Allahabad] where the Hon'ble bench observed as under: 6. Needless to mention that the quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are the independent proceedings as per the ratio laid down in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT [200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chased computer but claimed 100% deduction by treating the same as revenue expenses under the head repair and maintenance but the AO disallowed the same by treating the same as capital expenditure. Likewise, the assessee while claiming depreciation on weighing machine claimed depreciation at the rate applicable for computer but the AO held that depreciation should be allowed at the rate applicable for plant and machinery thus disallowed excess depreciation of Rs. 10,208/-. Again it is case of difference of opinion where assessee claimed certain deduction in the return of income which was not accepted by the AO. Hence, the question of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particular of income does not arise as held by the Hon'ble Su....