Asstt Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Kanpur v. M S Maria Exports Kanpur

In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Lucknow Bench A Lucknow Before Shri T S Kapoor Accountant Member And Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury Judicial Member Ita No 309 Lkw 2016 Assessment Year 2003 04 Acit 1 Lucknow V M S Maria Exports 19 150 Ft Road Jajmau Kanpur T An Pan Aaffm 3042 H App Ell Ant Respondent Appellant By Shri R K Vishwakarma D R Respondent By Shri Pradeep Seth C A Date Of Hearing 12 12 201 7 Date Of Pronouncement 14 12 201 7 O R D E R Per P Artha Sarathi Cha Udhury J M This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of The Ld Cit A I Kanpur Dated 1 3 2016 2 The Sole Grievance In This Appeal Relates To The Deletion Of Penalty By The Ld Cit A Under Section 271 1 C Of The Act Amounting To Rs 14 Lakhs Imposed By The Assessing Officer 3 The Facts In This Case Are That The Assessment Under Section 143 3 Of The Act Was Completed On 30 3 2006 On A Total Income Of Rs 71 38 693 As Against The Returned Income Of Rs 34 66 388 After Making Various Additions And Disallowances In The Assessment Order Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271 1 C Of The Act Were Initiated In Respect Of Additions Except Additions On Account Of Travel Expenses And Ita No 309 Lkw 2016 2 Car Expenses Thereafter The Assessee Received A Show Cause Notice Requiring The Assessee To Explain Why Penalty May Not Be Imposed The Assessee Filed Detailed Reply Wherein Assessee Has Dealt With Each And Every Addition In Respect Of Which Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated At Length And In Support Of Its Submission Placed Reliance On Various Judicial Pronouncements The Ld Cit A Has Held That The Assessing Officer While Drafting Penalty Order Has Not Accepted The Explanation Of The Assessee And Has Not Given Any Reasoning For Not Accepting The Same The Assessing Officer Has Not Proven The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee To Be False Nor Has He Been Able To Establish That Bona Fide Of Assessee Is Suspicious Mere Non Accepting An Explanation Can Be A Ground For Making Addition But To Prove Conce Alment The Onus Is On The Assessing Officer To Establish Falsities And Malafide In Terms Of Explanation 1 To Section 271 1 C Of The Act The Ld Cit A Further Observed That Assessee Has Disclosed All Material Facts In Respect Of Its Income And Has Als O Offered Plausible Explanations On All The Issues The Ld Cit A Held That There Is No Mischief Of Consciously And Deliberately Concealing The Particulars Of Income Or Submission Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income And Th E Penalty Has Been Levied By The Assessing Officer Mechanically Therefore He Deleted The Penalty Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271 1 C Of The Act 4 We Have Perused The Record Analyzed Facts And Circumstances And Have Considered The Judicial Pronouncements Placed Befo Re Us We Observe That Penalty Proceedings Are Entirely Different From Assessment Proceedings And The Criteria Mentioned In The Penalty Provisions Have To Be Adhered To Strictly By The Authority Imposing The Penalty If The Assessee Has Provided Any Fals E Information Or His Conduct Is Malafide Which If Proved By The Assessing Officer May Become A Subject Matter Ita No 309 Lkw 2016 3 For Im Position Of Penalty In The Present Case It Is On Record As Appearing In The Order Of The Ld Cit A That The Assessing Officer Has No T Brought Out Any Clear Case For Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271 1 C Of The Act We Therefore Hold That The Ld Cit A Was Correct In Cancelling The Penalty Accordingly We Uphold The Order Of The Ld Cit A Deleting The Penalty 5 In The Resu Lt Appeal Of The Revenue Is Dismissed Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 14 12 201 7 Sd Sd T S Kapoor Partha Sarathi Chaudhury Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated 14 Th December 2017 Jj 1212 Copy Forwarded To 1 Appellant 2 Respon Dent 3 Cit A 4 Cit 5 Dr Assistant Registrar