9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty proceedings. The issue was debatable at both the stages and in fact the assessee through his details of income has shown the dates upon which the contribution to PF ESI was made. Thus, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as those details were very much before the AO as well as before the CIT(A). Therefore, there is no element of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Since the issue was debatable, the assessee has taken the benefit of decision of other Hon ble High Courts which were in favour of the assessee. Thus, Section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not attract in the present case. Appeal of the assessee is thus allowed. - Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) of the Act at total income of Rs. 7,26,05,990/- on 24.11.2017 for the A.Y. 2015-16. At the time of passing the Assessment Order, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated separately for concealing the particulars of income. Show cause notice for penalty proceedings on the issue of delay in depositing of Employees Provident Fund and ESIC was issued on 13.08.2021. In the meanwhile, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and confirmed the addition under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. After taking cognisance of the assessee s submissions, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 1,21,467/- thereby stating that the assessee has evaded tax. 4. Being agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay was not deliberate but due to mistake on the part of the assessee and his AR and, therefore, the delay should be condoned. The reasons given by the assessee elaborately suffice for delay in filing the present appeal. Hence the delay is condoned. As regards to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the invocation of the same is either that of filing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income or both the limbs are present in respect of assessee s return of income before the Assessing Officer. But, in the present case, the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in case of Checkmate came after the assessment proceedings as well as after the penalty proceedings. The issue was debatable at both the stages and in fact the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
