2025 (12) TMI 598

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....irming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Facts in all these appeals are almost similar except variation of figure of penalty, thus, with the consent of parties, all the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of facts, facts in appeal in ITA No.2613/Delhi/2018 for AY 2011-12 are treated as lead case. The assessee in ITA No.2613/Delhi/2018 has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. "That the notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c) and other imposing penalty of Rs. 10,30,000.00 under said section are illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction. 2. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in law....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aid addition/disallowance hence no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) could be levied on the basis of such a disallowance. 9. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in non-quashing of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) which is wrongly initiated by the AO. 10. Penalty proceedings have been initiated without any specific charges hence the same are liable to be set aside. 11. That in any case the penalty imposed is unjust, arbitrary and highly excessive." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Co-operative society engaged in the business of providing of Credit Facility and Agricultural Implements to farmers and marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members. The assessee filed its return of income d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me nor furnished inaccurate particulars while filing return of income. The assessee made full disclosure of all the receipt in it return of income and the additions were made only due to difference of opinion. Mere disallowance would not ipso facto lead to levy of penalty as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Reliance Petro Products vs. CIT (322 ITR 158). The ld AR of the assessee on addition of surplus money submits that similar receipt has been allowed in assessment completed under section 143(3) in AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 by following the order of order of Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs N.S. Committee in ITA No. 759 of 2012, copy of which is placed on record. The ld AR of the assessee also relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in....