9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue : Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0052/2017-18/CIT(A)-5, dated 26/04/2019 passed U/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the levy of penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Ld. AO. 3. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted before us that there is a delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay. Relevant portion o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. The contention of the assessee was that since the assessee had incurred the expenditure if it is not allowed U/s. 35 of the Act the same may be allowed U/s. 37 of the Act. However, the Ld.AO disallowed the claim of expenditure U/s. 37 also. Thereafter, the ld. AO invoked penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied minimum penalty i.e., 100% of tax sought to be evaded which works out to ₹ 25,97,019/- (30% of 86,56,730/-) on the ground that the assessee had failed to offer explanation in respect of the material to the computation of the total income and also failed to prove that all the facts relating to the material to the computation of income have been disclosed by it . On appeal, the ld. CIT (A) after considering t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 58 has categorically held that a mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law, be itself, will not amount to furnishing incorrect particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Further, the decision relied by the assessee in the case ACIT vs. VIP Industries Limited cited supra also supports the case of the assessee wherein it was held as follows: Adverting to the facts of the instant case we find that the assessee had bona fidely made a claim for deduction U/s. 35 in respect of cost of car purchased for the purchase of R D activity by disclosing all the necessary particulars in the audit report. The facts that the car was purchased by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
