9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where assessee had furnished certain details regarding expenditure as well as in in return, which were not found inaccurate, nor could be viewed as concealment of income on part of assessee, merely because said claim was not accepted or was not acceptable by the revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We are of the view that no penalty can be levied in the case where the disallowance expenditure is estimated and therefore, we are inclined to delete the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon ble Judicial Member And Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon ble Accountant Member For the Assessee : Ms. Keerthana, AR For the Department : Dr. Aparna Vil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer thereby levying the penalty of Rs. 8,93,288/- vide order dated 25.03.2022 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) by relying on various decisions as detailed in his order confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: - 1. On the facts and Circumstances of the case the order passed of Hon'ble CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have annulled the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to INR Rs. 8,93,288, as the appellant has neith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the disallowance of 10% of labour expenses on estimation basis doesn't amount to concealment of particulars of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable in the matter of bonafide difference of opinion between the assessee and the department regarding allowability of the claim. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee has not gone for further appeal before Honourable High court on disallowance made on estimation basis to purchase peace of mind. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that disallowance of certain expenditure on estim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii. PCIT v. Torque Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [2017] 81 taxmann.com 283 (P H). iii. ACIT v. Vision Research Management Ltd., [2015] 63 taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow Trib) iv. Potluri Phanendra Babu v. ITO in ITA No. 241 242/VIZ/2022 dated 10.08.2023. v. CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., [2008] 171 Taxman 320 (P H). 6. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short Ld. DR ] heavily relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record and the case laws cited by the Ld.AR. Admittedly the addition is based on estimation by the Assessing Officer which was later again estimated by the Ld.CIT(A) to disallow 10 percentage of expenditure while adjudicating the quantu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
