9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are during scrutiny assessment, the rest being minor penalty of ESI and interest on late payment of TDS, income tax and service tax penalty were contested as being compensatory and hence allowable but were subsequently offered for taxation. Considering the huge losses, the additions and disallowances inviting the levy of penalty amounting in all to ₹ 5,59,803/-, are too immaterial and coupled to it is the fact that a major portion of it relating to ESI/PF disallowed u/s 43B of the Act of ₹ 4,79,986/- had stood disclosed in the tax audit report as disallowable but was inadvertently left out while computing the income for the year. The same is clearly not liable to any penalty being squarely covered by the decision in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder: 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer's and Worthy CIT (A)'s orders are contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer's and Worthy CIT (A)'s he Ld. AO grossly erred in imposing penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 on the addition of ₹ 4,79,9867- by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act. The non adding back of bonus of ₹ 2,31,778/- was completely a clerical error by the accountant of the assessee and no penalty can be made on the same as he same was clearly reported in the tax audit report (Form 3 CD) of assessee. The same issue was also discussed in the case of price Waterhouse coppers Vs. CST SC and decided in favour of assessee. Further the addition of Ex-gratia of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 21,852/- on account of interest on refund not disclosed. The same was due to an oversight/bonafide mistake and was offered for taxation immediately without any delay. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to or amend the aforesaid grounds before disposal of the appeal. 3. It transpires from the grounds raised above that the assessee is agitating levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars relating to the following: 1) Bonus and exgratia remaining unpaid by the prescribed dated as per section 43B of the Act =₹ 4,79,986/- (2,31,778+2,48,208) 2) Interest on TDS, Income Tax Penalty paid = 7,477/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 for the proposition that all particulars having been duly disclosed a mere discussion would not attract levy of penalty; ii) CIT Vs National Institute of Technical Teacher Training Research (2014) 50 Taxman.com 107 (P H) for the proposition that particulars of income having been furnished, disallowance having been made of a specific provision of the Act i.e. section 43B of the Act disallowing the amount remaining unpaid by specific due date would not attract penalty; iii) Pr.CIT Vs. Torque Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 81 Taxman.com 283 (P H); iv) CIT Vs. Balkishan Dhawan HUF (2013) 40 Taxman.com 208 (P H) for the proposition that merely because the assessee s claim for ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dly and the basic proposition laid down with regard to the same, as pointed out by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee, is that if all particulars of income are disclosed the mere disallowance of claim or non acceptance of claim of the assessee would not attract levy of penalty as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) at. In the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held a bonafide mistake on the part of the assessee to not attract levy of penalty where all particulars of income are disclosed but the assessee fails to act accordingly while computing his return of income. 8. Having said so, in the facts of the present case we find that it is not t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of ₹ 4,79,986/- had stood disclosed in the tax audit report as disallowable but was inadvertently left out while computing the income for the year. The same is clearly not liable to any penalty being squarely covered by the decision of the Hon ble Apex court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers(supra).The remaining additions/disallowances of ₹ 79,817/- are pathetically immaterial and can be safely said to have been bonafidely mistakenly not disallowed/added back to the income of the assessee as claimed by it. 9. In these background we hold that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable on account of additions made as listed above in our order and the order of the Ld.CIT(A), therefore, upholding levy of penalty is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
