9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the light of the fact that the assessee had willfully claimed the wrong deductions, interest paid on late payment of TDS and expenses under Charity and Donation head. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the facts discussed in detail, in the assessment order by ignoring the facts that assessee repeated the mistake many times firstly by deducting ₹ 12,30,086/- from P L A/c, secondly claiming interest paid on late payment of expenses which showed the malafide intention of the assessee company. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the facts discussed in detail, in the penalty order u/s 271 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.2011. 5. Dissatisfied with the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A) and submitted various submissions and it was pleaded that the expenditure was not doubted by Assessing Officer and rather he had allowed the expenditure in the next year and, therefore, the assessee had not concealed any income and penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) was not justified. Reliance in this respect placed on a number of case laws including the decision of Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 158 SC. 6. The Ld. CIT (A), after going through the submissions filed by assessee deleted the penalty by holding as under: I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the AR of the appellant. Penalty u/s 271(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g deduction and hence had furnished wrong particulars of income and, therefore, penalty imposed by Assessing Officer is liable to be restored. 8. The Ld. AR on the other hand submitted that there were a marginal delay in deposit of tax and there was no concealment of income as all particulars of income were furnished and Assessing Officer had not doubted the genuineness of income and there was no concealment of income. Reliance in this respect was placed on the following cases: 1) ITO vs. Lucky Star International reported in ITA No. 1041/Ahd/2010. 2) ACIT vs. M/s. Jaksons Ltd. reported in ITA No. 4076, 4077/Del/2011. 3) DCIT vs. Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd. reported in ITA No.4933/Del/2010. In view of the various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was resulted in disallowance of expenditure u/s 40 (a) (ia), that itself cannot be construed as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The assessee has failed to deduct TDS which resulted in disallowance of expenditure. Further, the Revenue cannot penalize the assessee by levying penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. In order to levy penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act, there has to be concealment of particulars of income of the assessee or the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. Present is not the case of concealment of income or it is not the case of Revenue that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The department has not found out that the assessee has fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
