9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gated to deduct rendered the amount in question liable for disallowance as an expenditure, but, we are unable to concur with the view taken by the lower authorities that a disallowance for such technical and venial infraction of a statutory provision would justify saddling the assessee with penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In judgment of Hindustan Steel Limited Vs. State of Orissa [ 1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] as observed that imposition of penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) is nothing short of a quasi criminal proceedings. In the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, we are of a strong conviction that no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) for a simpliciter disallowance under Sec.40(a)(ia) could have been validly imposed by the A.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he particulars relating to the additions or disallowance were part of record and as such there is no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) failed to consider that notice issued by the A.O u/s 274 of the Act is defective for not mentioning the specific charge. 5. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) failed to consider that the notice issued u/s 274 has no clear specification on the charges i.e whether it is for concealing particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as there was no strike off and hence the notice as well as order is bad in law 6. The Appellant craves leave to add alter or amend the ground of appeal at or before the hearing of the appellant. Further, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (-) ₹ 2,25,840/-. Also, the A.O while framing the assessment had in the body of the assessment order initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. After the culmination of the assessment proceedings, the A.O called upon the assessee to Show cause as to why penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) may not be imposed as regards the disallowance of its claim for deduction of commission expenses of ₹ 4,40,000/-. In reply, the assessee tried to impress upon the A.O that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was called for in its hands. However, the A.O not finding favour with the reply filed by the assessee imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,36,000/- for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c), vide his order dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncement that has been pressed into service by the ld. A.R to drive home his aforesaid contention. Admittedly, the assessee had been made to suffer penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) as regards the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the assessee s claim for deduction of commission expenses. As observed by us hereinabove, the commission expenses have been disallowed not for the reason that the same were either found to be bogus or unsubstantiated, but, on the ground that de hors deduction of tax at source, the same, were liable to be disallowed under Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In sum and substance, the genuineness and veracity of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
