Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (11) TMI 1065

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evied merely for the rejection of the claim of the assessee as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] Respectfully following the same, we are of the opinion that the penalty levied by the ld. A.O. and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. The ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. - Shri Om Prakash Kant, AM And Shri Rahul Chaudhary, JM For the Assessee : Shri Ajay Singh And Shri Akshay Pawar For the Respondent : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, A M: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Ce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... disallowance of the garden expenses of Rs. 2,33,865/- holding that the same were not related to the business of the assessee. The ld. A.O. initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars by the assessee. In the appellate proceedings against the quantum addition, the disallowance was sustained by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the ld. A.O. issued show cause to the assessee as why the penalty in respect of the disallowance of the gardening expenses might be levied. 3. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee contested that the expenses were incurred in compliances to the norms of the Pollution Control Board and all the details were duly filed before the ld. A.O. and no particulars was found .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to METAX o be false, or DEPART (B) then, the added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub- section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 4.4. In the written submission, the appellant submitted that merely because of certain expenses claimed by the appellant, which claim if not accepted or is not accepted by the revenue, it cannot mean the particulars furnished by the assessee are inaccurate. The appellant further relied the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. The pleas and reliance by the appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y was erroneous. The only issue is that according to the ld. A.O., the said expenses had not been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. But the expenses were incurred under the requirement of the Pollution Control norms. Before us, the counsel for the assessee referred to the Circular issued by the Pollution Control Board. The said Circular is reproduced as under: 30/06/2016. CIRCULAR Sub.:- Circular regarding tree p plantation on remaining open land of 33% of open space reserved by e plantation green belt development. Ref.:- 1) State Govt.'s decision dtd. 31/05/2016 regarding planting two crore trees on occasion of World Environment Day. 2) Board's Circular regarding tree plantation dtd. 0 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ry, if any industry is willing to plant additional trees beyond 33% of open land of the industry. Sd/- (P.K. Mirashe) Member Secretary) 7. In our opinion, there is no dispute that the said expenses were incurred by the assessee and all the information at the time of quantum addition have been provided by the assessee and same has not been disputed by the ld. A.O. The penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied merely for the rejection of the claim of the assessee as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Respectfully following the same, we are of the opinion that the penalty levied by the ld. A.O. and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates