9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . No. 1116/DEL/2018 - - - Dated:- 26-8-2022 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Department : Shri R. S. Yadav, Sr. D. R.; ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This appeal is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, New Delhi, dated 02.02.2018. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Appeal No: 168/15-16 was filed with of CIT (A)-2 New Delhi on 24th April, 2015 by appellant company name Chandralekha Constructions Private Limited. Learned CIT (A) while passing the order inadvertently mentioned the name of appellant as Chandralekha Inf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of disallowance of Rs. 62,63,355/- payment made to sub contractors and disallowance of claim of financial charges. As against the assessment order, the assessee has filed an Appeal before the CIT(A) vide order dated 30/08/2013, the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 33,50,583/- made by the A.O on account of financial charges and with regard to the addition of Rs. 62,63,355/- as per the Assessing Officer these payments to the sub contractors without deduction of tax at source. Thus, after considering the submissions of the assessee company the CIT(A) deleted part of addition of Rs. 40,67,113/- out of the total addition of Rs. 62,63,355/- and confirmed the addition of Rs. 2196,242/- to the total income. 6. The above said addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 152 wherein it is held that merely because the assessee has claimed expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that, by itself, not attract the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. Further the Ahmadabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Vishal Madhusudan Choksi 214(1) TMI 910, held as under:- Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act - Held that:- The Assessing Officer has nowhere alleged that the payment of interest made to finance company on which the TDS was deductable is non genuine or bogus - It is also a fact that there is nothing on record or alleged that the payment of interest is excessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies concurrently cannot be held as perverse nor are there any grounds made out by the Revenue to dislodge the findings. Resultantly, when there is no concealment nor any occasion of furnishing inaccurate particulars to bonafide mistake, Tribunal rightly uphold the order of CIT(A), deleting the penalty, therefore, this Tax Appeal merits no consideration as question of law is to be determined. Hence, same is dismissed. . 12. By drawing the support of the above judicial pronouncements, we are of the opinion that there is neither concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee in the case on hand. Resultantly, the Grounds of Appeal filed by the assessee are allowed. 13. In the result, the Appeal filed by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
