9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) before the proceedings are concluded. Same position was reiterated by the Full Bench of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. and others [ 2008 (11) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT DELHI] On mere perusal of the assessment order, it would be evident that the AO had recorded the satisfaction to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged offence of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, only in respect of addition of interest income by denying exemption u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. The AO had not recorded satisfaction in respect of additional income offered during the course of assessment proceedings, which was allowed as deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Act ) for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Builders. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2016-17 was filed on 17.10.2016 declaring Nil income. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 21.11.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) at a total income of Rs. 2,40,163/- after allowing deduction u/s. 80IB(10) at Rs. 2,03,24,769/-, however, assessed book profits u/s. 115JC of the Act at Rs. 2,05,64,932/-. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of addition of interest income at Rs. 2,40,163/- assessed under the Income from other source . During the course of ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld. Sr. DR. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR placing reliance on the orders of the authorities below supports that it is a fit case for levy of penalty. 7. I heard the ld. Sr.DR and perused the relevant material on record. The solitary issue in the present appeal is with regard to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The pre-requisite condition for levy of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is the satisfaction of the AO to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is well settled in view of the Supreme Court decisions in CIT Vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC) and D.M. Manasvi Vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC) , that power to impose penalty under section 271 of the Act depends u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings. 9. As regards the addition of interest income, it is crystal clear that it is a mere disallowance of claim for deduction u/s. 80IB(10), which is unsustainable under law, it does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 . There is no finding by the AO as to which particulars filed by the appellant are found to be inaccurate. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, accordingly direct the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 39,92,450/-. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 20th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
