TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntum and penalty are distinct proceedings wherein each and every disallowance/addition made in case of the former and does not automatically attract the latter penal provision. Thus both the learned lower authorities have erred in penalising assessee u/s. 271(1)(c) in this case of the assessee's auditor's inadvertent mistake in raising higher service tax claim. This penalty is directed to be deleted therefore. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1030/HYD/2019 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2021 - A. Mohan Alankamony, Member (A) And S.S. Godara, Member (J) For the Appellant : T. Rajendra Prasad, AR For the Respondents : Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR ORDER S.S. Godara, Member (J) 1. This assessee's appeal for A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of service tax returns filed by the assessee, it is noticed that even as per turns of service tax, liability and payment is only ₹ 20,51,856/-. In response furnished during the course of hearing, Sri Srinivas Reddy husband of assessee stated that the business enterprise made salary payments but due to clerical mistake, such amount has been reflected as service Tax. However, no evidence was furnished to substantiate this explanation. Hence, the penalty notice u/s. 271(1)(c) was issued on 05/12/2017 duly highlighting the fact of furnishing of inaccurate particulars in respect of service tax . The fact of furnishing inaccurate particulars was also discussed in the assessment order. In response to the penalty notice, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ween Profit Loss Account and Service Tax Returns, ₹ 43,320/- as interest on IT Refund and raised a demand of ₹ 6,34,290/-. During the Financial Year 2014-15 relevant to Assessment Year 2015-16, the assessee has paid service tax to the tune of ₹ 20,51,856/- on turnover of ₹ 7,49,67,500/-. While punching the data into Profit Loss A/c the service tax amount of ₹ 20,51,856/- wrongly entered as ₹ 36,83,371/-, which resulted in understatement of turnover to the extent of ₹ 16,31,515/- The above facts were explained during the assessment proceedings and the assessee agreed for addition of above difference and paid the demand. Against the above disallowance a Notice U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erical error, the assessee prays the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-7 to allow the appeal by deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. I have considered the findings of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant carefully. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for an amount of ₹ 16,31,515/- being the difference of ₹ 36,83,371/- claimed as Service Tax payments and an amount of ₹ 20,51,856/- being the extent of the challans furnished for verification during the course of assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer further held that a claim of inflated service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the scrutiny proceedings and confrontation of the appellant with positive evidence, the appellant would not have come forward for acceptance of the disallowance. The facts of the cases relied upon by the AR of the appellant are different and are not identical. Hence, the Assessing Officer is fully justified in levying penalty. All the grounds raised by the appellant are rejected. 3. We have given fruitful consideration to rival pleadings against and in support of the impugned penalty imposed in both the lower proceedings. A perusal of the foregoing detailed lower appeal discussion sufficiently suggests that the impugned penalty has arisen on account of the difference in the actual service tax paid and that claimed (supra) at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
