TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee and merely because thus the assessee’s claim for deduction has not been accepted, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be attracted especially when there is no allegation that any particulars filed by the assessee in relation to his claim were found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It is also pertinent to note that the impugned disallowance of expenses was made by the A.O. on the ground that the same were not allowable in the year under consideration but were allowable in the subsequent year on commencement of the corresponding projects which clearly shows that the dispute was only relating to the year in which the said expenses are allowable and not about the very deductibility of the said expenses as the genuineness - penalty deleted - in favour of assessee. - ITA No.8444/Mum/2010 - - - Dated:- 8-4-2013 - P M Jagtap, AM and S T M Pavalan, J. For the Appellant : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi For the Respondent : Shri Mohit Jain ORDER:- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) -22, Mumbai dtd. 9-9-2010 whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 13,31,915/- imposed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he total disallowance of Rs. 38,05,470/- made on account of expenses relating to the projects yet to be commenced holding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income to that extent. 4. The penalty imposed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was challenged by the assessee in an appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted on its behalf before the ld. CIT(A) that all the relevant details pertaining to the expenses claimed were duly furnished by the assessee in the financial statements filed along with the return of income. It was also submitted that the genuineness of the said expenses was not doubted or disputed by the assessee and the disallowance was made merely on the ground that the same were allowable not in the year under consideration but in the subsequent years on commencement of the corresponding projects. It was contended that the said expenses claimed by the assessee were purely of revenue nature and the same were claimed by the assessee under the bonafide belief that the same were allowable in the year under consideration. It was contended that the case of the assessee thus was not a fit case to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the object behind enacting Section 271(1)(c) read with explanation indicates that the said section has been enacted to provide a remedy for loss of revenue. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is a civil liability . Wilful concealment is not essential ingredient for attracting a civil liability as in the matter of prosecution u/s. 276C. If record before A.O can sustain that there was concealment, that would be sufficient to sustain the penalty. In view of this observation of Hon ble Court, the A0. was not required to prove that there was a conscious concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The appellant further claims that he was under bonafide belief that the said expenditure was revenue expenditure. However, by way of claiming deduction with reference to the projects which were exempt or which has not commenced at all the action of the appellant cannot be said to be bonafide. In view of this, I agree with the A.O. that the appellant has filed inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, the penalty imposed by the A.O. is upheld. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset invited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t inserted by Finance Act (2008) in the statute with retrospective effect from 1-4-1989. On merit, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of the authorities below in support of the Revenue s case that it is a fit case to impose the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material placed on record. As regards the preliminary objection raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee about the lack of satisfaction recorded by the A.O. for initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of disallowance of expenses, we are of the view that the said disallowance having been specifically made by the A.O. in the computation of total income of the assessee made in the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and there being a specific direction contained in the said order to issue notice u/s 271(1)(c), the satisfaction as required to initiate penalty proceedings even in respect of disallowance of expenses was deemed to have been recorded by the A.O. as per the provisions of sub-section (1B) of section 271 inserted by Finance Act (2008) with retrospective effect from 1-4-1989. We therefore find no merit in the prelimin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
