9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeals against penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Issue 1: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2004-05 The appellant filed two appeals against the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year 2004-05. The AO had imposed a penalty of &8377; 2,94,50,000 based on inaccurate particulars furnished by the appellant regarding understatements of receipts and expenses. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, emphasizing the inconsistency in reporting income and expenses related to a joint venture. The appellant argued that no real income accrued to the joint venture due to an agreement transferring work to another entity. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, held that since the additions made by the AO were deleted in the quantum proceedings, no penalty could be sustained. The Tribunal cited legal precedents to support its decision, including the Supreme Court ruling in C.I.T. vs. Reliance Petro Products 322 ITR 158 (SC), stating that disallowing a claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Issue 2: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2005-06 The facts of the case for Assessment Year 2005-06 were similar to those of the previous year. Following the reasoning applied for the Assessment Year 2004-05, the Tribunal canceled the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) for this year as well. In conclusion, both appeals filed by the assessee against the penalties imposed for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06 were allowed by the Tribunal, citing the lack of sustainability for the penalties based on the quantum additions being deleted.
|
