9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or levying the penalty. It is no doubt true that the payment made by the respondent-assessee to M/s. Filtrex Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore, was liable for deduction of tax at source. It is also not in dispute that such amount of tax was not deducted at source in respect of the payment made to M/s. Filtrex Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore. It appears that there was genuine confusion on the question as to whether the payment made to a foreign party was liable for levying tax in India or not. The Chartered Accountant has given a certificate to the effect that the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source while making the payment to M/s. Filtrex Holding Pte. Ltd., Singapore. Thus, the assessee acted on the basis of the certificate issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short). Out of three disallowances made by the Assessing Officer, two disallowances were deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore by the order dated 28.4.2008. However, disallowance of ₹ 79,98,870/- was sustained by the erstwhile Commissioner. The Assessing Officer treated the sum of ₹ 79,98,870/- both as concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the respondent-assessee and therefore initiated proceedings for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. After hearing, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of ₹ 26,92,419/- being the penalty attributable to the concealment of income of ₹ 79,98,870/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 79,98,870/- would amount to concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act? The very question was decided in the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the assessee. 5. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders inasmuch as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the appellate Tribunal, on facts, have rightly concluded that the genuineness of the payment was never in doubt; the explanation of the assessee is acceptable and that the assessee has neither concealed the income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In the matter on hand, the genuineness of the payment was neve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Appellate Tribunal have concurrently concluded that it is difficult to say that the respondent has either concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of the income. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Dilip N.Shroff vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax another (291 ITR 519) where the assessee had relied on the opinion of an expert and subsequently the opinion of the expert is not accepted or another expert had given a different opinion, it could not be held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars within the meaning of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act ('Act' for short). In the matter on hand, as aforementioned, the Chartered Accountant has given a certif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
