9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the payment for the current year and remarked that the amount will be allowed in the next assessment year – Held that:- if the contention of the Revenue is accepted then in case of every return where the claim is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee, will invite the penalty under section 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature, orders set aside and delete the levy of penalty, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - IT APPEAL NO. 865 (DELHI) of 2010 - - - Dated:- 5-5-2010 - RAJPAL YADAV, SHAMIM YAHYA, JJ. Rajnesh Aggarwal and D.L. Gandhi for the Appellant. H.K. Lal for the Respondent. ORDER Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... These should have been added to this year's taxable income and allowed in the next year's taxable income. The assessee requests yourself to treat the expenditure accordingly. Reply dated November 23, 2007 : That regarding TDS made but paid late in the next assessment year may be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) in this assessment year with a note to be allowed in the next assessment year." 4. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee had agreed to the disallowance with the condition that it will be allowed in the next year. The Assessing Officer held that as per the provision of section 40(a)(ia), the expenditure of Rs. 7,15,276 was not deductible. Hence he disallowed the same and gave further remark that as per the provision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the payment for the current year and remarked that the amount will be allowed in the next assessment year. 9. In the background of the aforesaid facts, we have to consider whether the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c). We find that section 271(1(c) of the Act postulates imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. In this case we find that in the audit report accompanying with the return it was clearly mentioned that the amount of Rs. 7,15,276 was not admissible under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act. Hence, there was neither any concealment nor furnishing of any inaccurate particulars. The assessee's case is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act, or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute." 10. As regards the decision of the hon'ble apex court in the case of Dharamendra Textile Processors ( supra ), we find that the same is not applicable in the present case, as in the present case we do not find there is any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. The interpretation of this case law by the learned Departmental representative is misplaced. We further find that the hon'ble apex court in the case of CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR 1/183 Taxman 444 has itself explaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
