9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income for that reliance can be placed on the judgment of M/s Price Waterhouse Copers ( P) Ltd [ 2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that imposition of penalty would be unwarranted in a case, where the assessee has committed inadvertently and bona fide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income. We delete the penalty sustained by ld CIT(A). Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 95/SRT/2023 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2023 - Shri Pawan Singh, JM And Dr. A. L. Saini, AM For the Assessee : Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CA For the Revenue : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act on 17.12.2016, determining total income at Rs.65,78,250/-, by making addition on account of disallowance of Impact Fees, interest on late payment of TDS and payment towards material purchase. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed by AO that the assessee-company had claimed Impex Fees of Rs.5,06,754/- for the payment made to Surat Municipal Corporation ( SMC for short) for regularization of unauthorized construction of building. As the Impex Fees was penal in nature for violation of law hence was not allowable as expenditure and accordingly the Assessing Officer added the same and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. During the course of penalty proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through inadvertence and there was no intention to furnish inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, penalty is not penal in nature, the amount has been incurred during the course of doing business, hence, penalty should not be levied. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submitted that penalty imposed by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in on account for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, in its return of income, therefore penalty should be levied. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We note that the issue under consideration is no longer res integra, and the amount Impex Fees paid to SMC is allowable as business expense. We also note that Imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ACIT v Enviro Control Associates (I) Pvt. Ltd., Surat and by order dated 20-3-2009 has held, following the Delhi High Curt s judgment cited supra that the payment made to Surat Municipal Corporation was not in the nature of penalty for infraction of law and was allowable as a deduction in computing the business profits. Since the facts relating to the controversy are the same in the case before us, respectfully following the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, we confirm the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 8. We note that penalty should not be levied on account of technical error which was committed by the assessee and there was no intention to furnish inaccurate particulars of income for that reliance ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
