Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 469 - ITAT DELHIImposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – Inaccurate particulars furnished or not - Held that:- In the absence of any particular form of disclosure of the transaction, the disclosure in its books of account as done by the assessee was sufficient in law - in the absence of any provision of particular disclosure of the transaction, the disclosure in its books of account as done by the assessee was sufficient in law - There cannot be any charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars as well - the disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) cannot be considered as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars - the facts of the case does not warrant penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside – Decided in favour of assessee. Additions made – Hiring charges – Sale of software – Editing transfer charges - Held that:- There was no material on the basis of which this addition was made - Merely on the ground of dual rates being charged by assessee for the same episode the addition was made - No discrepancy had been found in the disclosures made by the assessee - the penalty is not sustainable – The AO had not pointed out any discrepancy in the disclosures made by assessee on this count in its books of account - The disallowance has been made primarily u/s 40A(2)(b) on account of reasonableness of expenses - The assessee’s explanation has not been found to be false but only because of difference of opinion held by AO – thus, the penalty levied on the disallowance is not sustainable – Decided in favour of assessee. Payments made to artists – Held that:- Since TDS was made from the payments made to the artists and amount was duly deposited with the department, merely on the ground of non-receipt of any reply from the said artists, for which there could be several reasons, it cannot be inferred that assessee had advanced wrong claim - the onus lies on the assessee to substantiate its claim but for the purposes of levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, this is not sufficient - where the assessee’s explanation is not malafide and he has not failed to disclose material in that regard, penalty cannot be levied - assessee had given details regarding various artists out of which only eight did not respond and the reason for the same was the time gap between the payment made to the artists and the enquiries initiated by AO - assessee’s explanation cannot be branded as malafide. Excess food expenditure – Held that:- AO had not pointed out even a single voucher in his order which was not verifiable - by no stretch of reasoning can be held to be a wrong claim made by assessee - The nature of expenditure was such for which infallible evidence could not be expected - there was no basis for levying penalty - Decided in favour of assessee.
|