9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenses which was ultimately found to be unsustainable would not by itself be inaccurate particulars of income as to pass penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As assessee is a government undertaking and no personal interest was involved for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. In our view, it is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the records. The AO in this case had levied the impugned penalty in relation to the disallowance of prior period expenditure. The assessee in the return of income offered prior period income of ₹ 54.66 lakhs against which it claimed prior period expenditure of ₹ 125.91 lakhs. The AO disallowed the amount of prior period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e which has been accepted by the AO. The disallowance, if any, was to be made that could have been even otherwise restricted to net disallowance only. Neither any inaccurate particulars have been furnished nor any income had been concealed. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the facts of the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ast Man International (2014) 41 Taxman.com 239 observed that mere making of claim for deduction of prior period expenses which was ultimately found to be unsustainable would not by itself be inaccurate particulars of income as to pass penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. After hearing the Ld. Representative of the parties, we find that on the identical facts, the AO for A.Y. 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
