9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2021 - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessee by: Ms. Radha Halbe, AR Revenue by: Mr. Gurbinder Singh, DR ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2014-15. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] and arises out of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the Act ). 2. The ground of appeal filed by the assessee reads as under : In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-38 Mumbai has erred in confirming the penalty of ₹ 2,31,628/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of interest paid exceeds the above amount, he disallowed the interest expenses to the extent of ₹ 8,55,582/-. Then he revised the disallowance to ₹ 7,49,606/- vide rectification order dated 08.02.2017. Subsequently, he levied a minimum penalty of ₹ 2,31,628/- u/s 271(1)(c) on the supposed concealed income of ₹ 7,49,606/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that vide order dated 18.01.2019, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the above penalty levied by the AO on merits by observing that : Even during the appellate proceedings, the appellant contended that this is only matter of difference in opinion and disallowance of claim and therefore not liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Supreme Court has held that merely because assessee had claimed expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In a recent decision dated 12.06.2020, the Hon ble Bombay High Court, having considered similar issues in Ventura Textiles Ltd. vs. CIT (ITA.No.958/2017), held as under:- 33. In Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Supreme Court examined meaning of the words 'particulars' and 'inaccurate'. As per Law Lexicon, the word 'particulars' means 'detail or details; the details of a claim or the separate items of an account'. Therefore, it was held that the word 'particulars' used in Section 271(1)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he knows that it is going to be examined by the Assessing Officer. In such a case a liberal view is required to be taken as necessarily the claim is bound to be carefully scrutinized both on facts and in law. Threat of penalty cannot become a gag and / or haunt an assessee for making a claim which may be erroneous or wrong. Again, in CIT Vs. Shahabad Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., 322 ITR 73, Punjab Haryana High Court held that making of wrong claim is not at par with concealment or giving of inaccurate information which may call for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 35. Reverting back to the present case it is quite evident that assessee had declared the full facts; the full factual matrix or facts were before the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
