Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 33 - ITAT DELHIPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition u/s 40(a)(ia) in respect of provision made or the disallowance of corporate membership subscription for 9 years in advance - Held that:- When the assessee had revealed all the facts and the allegation is that in spite of the view of the auditors that since tax had not been deducted at source on some amount, the details of which are well furnished and the assessee entertained an information that the year end provision for expenses which are reversed at the beginning of the next year are not liable to deduction at source, such amounts were prima facie inadmissible u/s 40(a)(ia). This is a debatable issue. When all such material is available before the AO with two views expressed and the AO took one of such views then where is the question of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof? Law does not say that wherever the AO disallow any claim, penalty should invariably be levied. CIT(A) is perfectly justified in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] Addition of corporate membership payment - CIT(A) found that it is not as if the amount was claimed fraudulently without actual payment but it was onetime payment for a period of 10 years and if the ingredients of Section 37(1) are examined, such an expenditure cannot be denied - Held that:- We are in agreement with the observation of the learned CIT(A) that it is a matter of difference of opinion between the assessee and the AO in so far as the advance nature of the payment is concerned and merely because the assessee does not carry the matter in further appeal in view of the smallness of the amount involved, it does not mean that the assessee conceded to have either concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. When there cannot be any penalty under law, merely because the assessee does not prefer further quantum appeal, it does not create jurisdiction for the AO to levy the penalty. - decided against revenue.
|