ITAT held that making of an incorrect claim by assessee which is supported by a report of Chartered Accountant cannot be hold as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not warranted as the claim made under bonafide belief.
The ITAT New Delhi in the above cited case held even export made by assessee through third parties are also to be considered while working out deductions allowable u/s 10B as such exports are deemed exports and recognized by Foreign trade policy for extending export benefits.
Non consideration of proposition laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India (P) Ltd., reported as (2014) 90 CCH 0081 (Delhi H.C.) is an apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal.
Admittedly, when the assessee was confronted with the depreciation being claimed on the property, the income from which had been returned under the head income from house property, it immediately realized its mistake of computation of total income and agreed for the addition to its total income.
It is held that Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.
We are of the considered view that assuming of jurisdiction by the AO in this case is bad in law for the reasons inter alia that when the assessee has specifically claimed exemption u/s 10BA on the sum of duty drawback of Rs.3,72,186/- and the AO after applying its mind allowed the same, there was no tenable material with the AO to reopen the assessment;
The books of accounts are duly audited and no defect has been pointed out vis-a-vis the sales, purchase or profit. The purported defects are confined to cash book, which have no nexus with the trading results.
It is held that requirement of getting books of account audited can arise only where the books of account are maintained. In the absence of the maintenance of books of account, there can be no penalty u/s 271B of the Act.
It is crystal clear that the terms of Section 40A(3) are not absolute and that the genuine and bonafide transactions are not taken out of the sweep and it is open to the assessee to furnish to the satisfaction of the AO, the circumstances under which the payment in the manner prescribed u/s 40A(3) was not practicable or would have caused to the genuine difficulty to the payee.
ITAT held that the rate of profit @15% on estimated unaccounted sale is an arbitrary rate without any comparable cases. The best comparison is also available of the business of the assessee himself wherein he has shown net profit at the rate of 6%.
