Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 988 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) - unpaid VAT and service tax liability - unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Held that:- AO has made addition on the basis of facts as disclosed by the assessee in the return of income and during the course of assessment proceedings. Assessee has furnished all relevant facts; therefore, the penalty cannot be levied merely because that it was not acceptable to the AO. Where the explanation is bonafide and all the facts relating to the same have been disclosed, penalty is not leviable. In this case, the assessee has offered explanation during the course of assessment proceedings itself that there was no requirement for tax deduction and the assessee has not claimed the liability of service tax and MVAT as expenditure in the Profit & Loss Account therefore, disallowance under section 43B are not called for. The assessee has given the details that cash deposits were out of cash withdrawals made before two to fifteen days prior to cash deposits in bank account. However, even after making addition there was still income computed was Nil on account of set-off of brought forward business loss of earlier years. We find that payment of ₹ 51,738 made to M/s. Atharva Landscape included ₹ 3,738 for material and ₹ 48,000 for labour charges, hence, TDS was not required to be made. Similarly, payment of ₹ 32,700 made to M/s. Nirman Projects as consultancy charges, this amount included reimbursement expenses for travelling. Total payment of consultancy charges is at ₹ 29,700 and travelling charges at ₹ 2,700, hence, there was no requirement of deduction of TDS However; the AO has disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Even disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), does not amount to concealment of income as held by the Co-ordinate Bench of tribunal in the case of ACIT v. M/s. Medercity Online Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (5) TMI 977 - ITAT HYDERABAD] wherein it was held that where accounts of the assessee are audited and explanation has been offered relating to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, no penalty can be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, the assessee has not claimed the service tax and MVAT as expenses and delay in deposit with government account was not deliberate therefore, there is no question of any disallowance under section 43B of the Act. However, the AO has not accepted this explanation. Though provisions of section 43B is not applicable to service tax as held in Pharma Search v. ACIT [2012 (5) TMI 90 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Therefore, there was no question of any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. With regard cash deposits, we find that the AO has disbelieved this contention of the assessee by observing that there is gap between cash withdrawals and cash deposits and made addition of the same. However, this cannot be ground for addition as held in the case of Gordhan V. ITO [2015 (10) TMI 2479 - ITAT DELHI] wherein it was held that no addition can be made merely because there was time gap between cash withdrawals and cash re-deposits. Similarly, in the case of Jasbir Singh Saini v. ITO [2015 (7) TMI 1151 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] it was held that where in quantum appeal tribunal has accepted assessee`s explanation in respect of part of deposit and partly confirmed addition stating that explanation given by the assessee which was not convincing, it could not be said that the assessee has concealed the his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income warranting of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). Non-filing of appeal against quantum addition does not mean that the assessee has concealed income of furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Just because Appellant’s explanation was not found acceptable by the AO, it does not follow that that the Appellant was unable to substantiate his explanation by providing various evidences and judicial opinions. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not therefore cover the case of the Assessee. Based on the above facts of the case; it can be held that the Assessee had made all the necessary disclosures on a bonafide belief, which is not agreeable to the AO, it will not automatically lead to a case for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|