9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd have also heard the Ld. DR on the issue who relied on the order of the CIT(A) and we find that it is not a case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as the assessee has shown in the audit report about the non deduction of TDS and also accepted the bonafide mistake of not adding the disallowance to the total income before the AO - we hereby order that the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the disallowance which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the case are that, on perusal of the audit report which showed that the assessee has not added back the amount to the return of income pertaining to the disallowance of Rs. 2,92,569/- which was required to be made by the assessee due to non payment of TDS . During the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of deduction of the expenditure and even thought it was not acceptable to the Revenue, it would not lead to the conclusion that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or filed inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd 348 ITR 306 held that no penalty is imposable on a bonafide claim or error. 7. We have g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
