9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or filed inaccurate particulars. The assessee has to pay interest of ₹ 38,46,611 to the APSFC. He has already paid an amount of ₹ 19,68,980. The balance amount payable is ₹ 18,77,631. According to the assessee, he is entitled to claim a benefit under section 43B(d) of the Act for entire amount, which is payable to APSFC. Therefore, the assessee filed all the details before the Assessing Officer and under bona fide belief, he has claimed excess relief which is not permissible in accordance with law. Thus, penalty provisions should not be attracted to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee - I. T. A. No. 649/Vizag/2014 - - - Dated:- 9-9-2016 - V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) And G. Manjunatha (Accountant Member) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lic financial institution shall be allowed only in computing the income referred to section 28 that the previous year in which such sum is actually paid . Accordingly, an amount of ₹ 19,68,980 is allowed and remaining balance of ₹ 18,77,631 is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty by observing that the assessee tried to evade the Income-tax which would be the basis for the levy of penalty, accordingly, penalty was levied on account of disallowance of interest of ₹ 18,77,631 and also on account of unsecured loans of ₹ 57,22,918. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the assessee. The assessee accepted it and no appeal was carried. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings and also imposed penalty by observing that the assessee tried to evade the Income-tax payment and penalty levied. On appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also confirmed the same. 7. After a careful consideration of the orders passed by the authorities below, we find from the penalty order that the Assessing Officer has not given any finding that the assessee either concealed the income or filed inaccurate particulars. It is only observation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee tried to evade the tax. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also not given any fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not acceptable or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act . The above decision of the honourable Supreme Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 9. In the case of Asst. CIT v. Varun Finstock Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 5 ITR (Trib) 271 (Ahd) wherein the Tribunal has observed that when the assessee genuinely makes a claim for a particular deduction by disclosing all necessary facts relating to it, it cannot be recorded to be concealment even if assessee's claim is rejected. This is a settled law that penalty proceedings are different from the assessment proceedings and therefore if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
