9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for non-satisfaction of either of the limbs. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has to come to a finding as to whether the assessee has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. For the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income are since qua non. It is a settled law that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) while penalty proceedings are initiated for breach of other limb of the section. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.139/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2020 - Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And, Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 271 (1) (c ) of the Act were not applicable and the penalty order was void and illegal; 4. That the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was neither any concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the income. He failed to appreciate that all the facts in respect of the said income were disclosed and on record; 5. That the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Act, could not be the sole basis for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act, making a claim which is rejected would not make the Assessee company liable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. In the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after considering the matter on record and after hearing the Learned DR. 6. We find that though the assessee has raised several grounds but the sole controversy is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Before us, Learned DR submitted that disallowance under Rule 8D(2) worked out to ₹ 46,93,155/- but it was restricted to the extent of expenses claimed of ₹ 1,74,966/- and on such disallowance penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been levied. He submitted that the AO has rightly levied the penalty and CIT(A) was justified in upholding the levy of penalty. 8. We have heard the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
