Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 840 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s.271(1)(c)- addition made on account of cash credit/disallowance of expenditure claimed as revenue in nature - Held that:- There is no dispute with regard to the addition was made on account of the expenditure claimed as revenue expenditure by the assessee which was treated as capital expenditure by the AO. The assessee has not concealed any particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The only difference in treatment of the particular of the expenditure. Therefore, in our considered view, the authorities below were not justified in confirming the penalty. Hence, in view of the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] we direct the AO to delete the penalty - Decided in favour of assessee. Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - Disallowance in respect of the difference between in the Profit & Loss A/c. filed along with the original return and in the revised return - Held that:- CIT(A) has observed that bills cropped up when additional income was detected. It is not the case of the Revenue that bills furnished before the AO were not genuine as there is no finding by the AO that these bills/vouchers were not genuine and no inquiry has been made at the end of the AO. Therefore, we are of the view that this is not the case were penalty deserves to be sustained. We therefore accordingly direct the AO to delete the penalty. As a result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed and appeal of the assessee for AY 2005- 06 is allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee. Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) - Held that:- As relying on Commissioner of Income-tax-IV Versus LG Chaudhary [2013 (8) TMI 192 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein held CIT(A) and ITAT have rightly deleted the penalty observing that the disallowance was due to non-payment of TDS, which was at the most a technical default. There being nothing to indicate any concealment of the income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee, the Assessing Officer was rightly not justified in levying the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|