2016 (5) TMI 1424

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... authorities below. - Decided in favour of assessee.
SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by: Sh. R.K.Gupta (CA.) Respondent by: Sh. Umesh Takyar (DR.) ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): This is an appeal filed by assessee against the order of learned CIT(A), Jammu, dated 17.09.2014 for Asst. Year:2009-10. 2. The assessee has taken six grounds of appeal, however, the crux of grounds of appeal is action of learned CIT(A), by which, he had upheld the penalty imposed by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act., for disallowances made on account of non deduction of TDS. 3. At the outset, the learned AR submitted that learned CIT(A) instead of allowing relief to the assessee had increase .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CCH 0089 (Mum). Our particular attention was invited to case law of Sh. Seaways Shipping Ltd. Secundrabad, in ITA No.80/H/2011 decided by Hon'ble Hyderabad "A" Bench, placed at (PB page no. 1 to 5). In view of the above submissions the learned AR submitted that penalty imposed and confirmed and enhanced by leaned CIT(A) be deleted. 5. The learned DR, heavily placed his reliance on the order of Authorities Below. 6. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that it is an undisputed fact that penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer for disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of tax on various payments. This fact is verifiable from the penalty order itself. We furt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rnished any factual incorrect information and the assessee is not guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In our opinion, the conditions laid down in section 271(1) (c ) of the Act is not complied with. Being so, levy of penalty is not justified merely because the assessee has claimed certain expenditure that expenditure is not eligible in view of the provisions of section 40(a) (ia) of the Act and for that reason, expenditure is disallowed. Penalty cannot be levied for mere making of a claim of the expenditure which is not sustainable and deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) is justified. We place reliance on the judgment of the HonT)le Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (322 ITR 158) (SC). .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X