Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2011 (6) TMI 816 - AT - Income TaxPenalty Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee had understated the income by not deducting tax at source on certain payments made which attracts TDS and by not addition certain expenditure to total income on which TDS was made beyond due dates - Non deduction of TDS by the assessee was resulted in such disallowance of Expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) - Penalty proceedings were initiated by AO HELD THAT - In our opinion the mistake committed by the assessee was compensated by disallowing the expenditure. Further the Revenue cannot penalise the assessee by levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In order to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) there has to be concealment of particulars of income of the assessee or the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. Present is not the case of concealment of income or it is not the case of Revenue that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The department has not found out that the assessee has furnished any factual incorrect information and the assessee is not guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In our opinion the conditions laid down in section 271(1)(c) is not complied with. In our opinion the conditions laid down in section 271(1) (c ) of the Act is not complied with. Being so levy of penalty is not justified merely because the assessee has claimed certain expenditure that expenditure is not eligible in view of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and for that reason expenditure is disallowed. Penalty cannot be levied for mere making of a claim of the expenditure which is not sustainable and deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) is justified. We place reliance on the judgement of the COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT . Accordingly the ground raised by the revenue holds no merit.
|