Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 275 - DELHI HIGH COURTLevy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - new claim in line with the change in its accounting policy in its fresh return - Cumulative expenditure comprising interest paid on borrowings, brokerage and other expenses claimed on an accrual basis - a change in the accounting policy vis-avis the aforementioned expenses to align it with Accounting Standard-7 - assessee has made a fresh claim under section 153A - Before the Tribunal, in the quantum appeal, the assessee gave up its claim qua the expenses which was made on an accrual basis assessment year-in-issue had been completed - HELD THAT:- Since this was not a case where the assessee had either concealed particulars of its income and/or furnished inaccurate particulars of its income which are the prerequisite for imposition of penalty, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the penalty imposed by the assessing officer was correctly cancelled, by the CIT (A), cannot be found fault with. Where basic facts are disclosed or where a new claim is made because of a change in accounting policy, albeit in a fresh return, and given up because the law, as declared, did not permit such a claim, in such circumstances, initiation of penalty proceedings against the assessee, in our view, is not mandated in law. As the assessee attempted a change in the method of accounting, concerning the aforementioned expenses. The method of accounting, as noticed by us, was in line with the AS-7. The only reason that the assessee in the quantum appeal preferred before the Tribunal gave up its claim was on account of the fact that it was a new claim which was sought to be incorporated in the fresh return filed by it in pursuant to the proceedings carried out under Section 153A of the Act - which, as per the advice received, could not have passed muster given the state of law, unless incriminating material had been found qua the assessee in the course of the search. Therefore, we are unable to agree with Mr. Maratha that the judgment rendered in Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd.[2010 (5) TMI 34 - DELHI HIGH COURT] applies to the facts obtaining in the present case. No substantial question of law
|