Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 211 - ITAT MUMBAIPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition account of provision for retention and power cost and provision for liquidated damage - difference of opinion between the assessee and the assessing officer - No information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate - HELD THAT:- AO while passing the assessment order made the addition account of provision for retention and power cost and provision for liquidated damage. The appeal filed by the assessee challenging the addition before CIT(A) was dismissed vide order dated 18.03.2011. No further appeal was filed before Tribunal. AO issued notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 07.12.2012. AO recorded that none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any submissions was made. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty on both the disallowance @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded vide his order dated 28.03.2013. There is no dispute that all the necessary facts and figures were disclosed by the assessee in its return of income. The return of income was accompanied the profit and loss account for the year, ended 31.03.2007, balance sheet as on 31.03.2007 and relevant schedules. No information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate, therefore, it could not be said that the provision made by assessee disallowed during the course of assessment proceedings was a result of any suppression of facts or deliberate concealment of income. No justification for imposing penalty when assessee had disclosed all the facts in the audited statement of accounts for the year under reference. There was no concealment of income at all. We are of the further view that it was just a clear cut case of difference of opinion between the assessee and the assessing officer. - Decided against revenue.
|