9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.2337/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 4-10-2018 - Shri R. C. Sharma, AM And Shri Amarjit Singh, JM For the Assessee : Shri Milin Bakhai (AR) For the Revenue : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR) ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] relevant to the A.Y. 2008-09 wherein the penalty levied by the AO has been ordered to be confirmed. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - The Hon ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by the AO of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the claim on account of loss of foreign expenses and on account of non-payment of TDS, the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated and after the compliance of necessary provision, the penalty to the tune of ₹ 5,97,203/- was levied. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 4. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. We noticed that the AO has levied the penalty on account of disallowance of claim of loss on foreign exchange and on account of disallowance of claim u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act to the tune of ₹ 3,65,841/-. On accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking 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 Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (322 ITR 158) (SC). Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue holds no merits. In the case of ACIT Vs. Bhoruka Logistic (P) Ltd. (2010) 34 (II) ITCL 552) Mumbai Tribunal has held that This is a case where the dispute acrose against the disallowance of expenditure in view of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee had in fact paid TDS and it is not in dispute that the expenditure should be allowed in the subsequent year in which the TDS has been paid to the Gov. Treasury. The first appellate authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty u/s 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/s 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature. High Court of Punjab and Harayana in case of CIT Vs. Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) (324 ITR 73) Reliance is placed on the decision of High Court of Punjab and Harayana in case of CIT Vs. Lakhani India Ltd. (2010) (324 ITR 73) wherein it was held that the assessee during penalty proceedings claimed that there is no concealment and the additional disallowances has been made on account of difference of opinion. It is pertinent to mention here that the decision of the Bombay High Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
