Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1147 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - non specifying what was wrong with Assessing Officer's order as of why penalty was not leviable in this case - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute on the fact that during the relevant assessment year, the assessee changed the accounting method from project completion to percentage method. It was the result of change of method that certain indirect expenses claimed could not be allowed. The account books of the assessee were found to be duly audited and prepared in accordance with accepted accounting standard. The change of accounting method was also duly disclosed by the auditor. It was not the case of the revenue even before the Appellate Authority that the assessee had suppressed any material fact. At the highest, the case of the revenue was that even though the material was disclosed by the assessee but he had claimed certain inadmissible expenses. Claiming of an expense which is not sustainable in itself cannot be a ground for invoking Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In order to impose penalty under the said section, either there has to be concealed particulars of the income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the income. Rejection of a claim that too where in the facts of the present case it was result of change of accounting method is not sufficient for penalising the assessee. See RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] - No interference is warranted in deletion of penalty. - Decided against revenue
|