9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 7 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - The assessee had made claim of expenditure which was held not to be genuine by the AO as well as by the CIT(A) and by the Tribunal. Further, the assessee had grossly failed to prove that consultancy services were obtained from M/s. Super Consultancy Services for the purpose of the assessee s business. The circumstantial evidences also showed that the assessee did not obtain any services from M/s. Super Consultancy Services as held by the Tribunal. Thus, it has become evident that the transaction is bogus and not genuine. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the penalty made by the AO u/s 271 (1) (c). Against assessee.
Issues:
- Appeal against order of CIT (A) confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. - Claim of consultancy charges disallowed in quantum proceedings. - Justification for penalty imposition. - Failure to prove genuineness of consultancy services and expenditure. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (A) confirming the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee's main contention was that the disallowance of consultancy charges in the quantum proceedings did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The penalty was imposed by the JCIT for the alleged inaccurate particulars in the claim of consultancy charges paid after deducting tax at source. The CIT (A) upheld the penalty, stating that the appellant failed to produce evidence of services rendered or the payee of the consultancy charges, leading to the disallowance of the claimed expenses. 2. The facts of the case revealed that the assessee firm had filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2007-08, declaring a total income of Rs.45,26,450. The assessment order passed by the AO determined the total income at Rs.50,37,160, making additions for disallowance of consultancy charges and interest payment. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed by the JCIT, which was upheld by the CIT (A). The CIT (A) observed that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim of consultancy charges paid, leading to the disallowance of the expenses. The appellant's argument that the disallowance in the quantum proceedings did not warrant a penalty was rejected. 3. During the appeal before the ITAT, the assessee reiterated its submissions made before the lower authorities, while the revenue contended that the inaccurate particulars were furnished by the assessee justifying the penalty imposition. The ITAT considered the orders of the lower authorities and noted that the quantum appeal had been decided against the assessee, upholding the disallowance of consultancy charges. The ITAT concurred with the findings that the appellant failed to prove the genuineness of the consultancy services and expenditure claimed. The failure to provide evidence of services rendered by the consultancy firm led to the rejection of the claim and the imposition of the penalty under section 271(1)(c). 4. The ITAT upheld the order of the CIT (A) sustaining the penalty imposed by the AO, as the appellant could not establish the genuineness of the consultancy services claimed. The lack of evidence supporting the expenditure and services rendered by the consultancy firm led to the conclusion that the transaction was not genuine. Therefore, the ITAT dismissed the appeal of the assessee, affirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income regarding the claim of consultancy charges, which were found to be not genuine based on the evidence presented. The failure to prove the genuineness of the expenditure and services rendered resulted in the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the penalty.
|
