9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 327 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of transport expenses - payment made in cash - Proof of concealment of income - onus of proof shifted to the assessee - HELD THAT - In the present case penalty has been levied by the Ld. A.O for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income but nowhere from the assessment order or the penalty order is discernable that what type of particulars have been filed incorrectly by the assessee. No efforts were made by the Ld. A.O during the course of assessment proceedings to examine the genuineness of the transaction of transport charges paid by the assessee to M/s Kosar Transport Company. Just because the payments were made in cash cannot be a basis to doubt the genuineness of the expenditure. Since the disallowance are made on adhoc basis by applying the rate of 15%, holding the assessee liable to pay penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income cannot be held to be justified. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2014-15. The penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer (A.O) and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II (CIT) based on the disallowance of transport expenses. 2. Grounds of Appeal: The assessee raised two main grounds in the appeal. Firstly, challenging the imposition of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the basis of concealment of income, arguing that the assessee acted in good faith and did not conceal any income. Secondly, requesting the deletion of the penalty amount of &8377; 5,73,064 imposed under section 271(1)(c). 3. Assessment and Penalty Proceedings: The assessee, engaged in the transport business, filed the e-return declaring income of &8377; 15,31,266. The assessment was completed after making additions towards disallowance of transport expenses, resulting in the assessment of income at &8377; 33,85,842. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, leading to the imposition of a penalty of &8377; 5,73,064 by the A.O, which was challenged in the appeal. 4. Arguments and Contention: The counsel for the assessee argued that the penalty was unjustified as the disallowance was adhoc in nature and no adverse material was presented to doubt the genuineness of the expenses. It was contended that the penalty was levied without examining the genuineness of the transactions and solely based on the mode of payment (cash). 5. Judgment and Decision: After considering the contentions from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the disallowance was adhoc and the A.O did not provide any evidence to question the genuineness of the expenses. The Tribunal noted that the penalty was imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without specifying the incorrect particulars filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's finding and deleted the penalty of &8377; 5,73,064 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed. 6. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of establishing a direct link between the inaccurate particulars furnished and the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. In this case, the adhoc nature of the disallowance and the lack of evidence questioning the genuineness of the expenses led to the deletion of the penalty.
|
