Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 389 - ITAT DELHIPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of of “non-compete fee” amortized in its returns of income supported with computation sheet - HELD THAT:- When the claim lodged by the assessee company, in its return of income on the basis of its audited financials have been rejected by the lower authorities while taking different view than the assessee, no question of furnishing inaccurate particulars arises. Following the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.[2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] we are of the considered view that in this case, there was no occasion for the assessee to furnish in accurate particulars of its income who has lodged a bona fide claim qua the deduction and writing of the value of signages and ice boxes on the basis of its audited financials which has been rejected by the revenue authorities by taking different view and in these circumstances provisions contained u/s 271(1)(c) are not attracted. Assessing Officer has nowhere brought on record if assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, at the most, the act of the assessee may be termed as “filing of incorrect claim” which does not attract the penal provisions contained under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is settled principle of law that when quantum appeal is admitted by the Hon'ble High Court by framing a question of law, as in the instant case, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable as has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in cases of PCIT vs. Harsh International (P) Ltd.[2020 (12) TMI 1082 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers [2014 (7) TMI 1150 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] The assessee is that when substantial question of law has been framed by the Hon'ble High Court in an appeal preferred by the assessee challenging quantum order, the issue has become debatable, the impugned penalty could not survive. We are of the view that Assessing Officer has failed to bring on record if assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars income at any stage of assessment proceedings, hence, the question framed in preceding para is decided in favour of the assessee. So finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) deleting the penalty levied by Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
|