Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 296 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - claim of deprecation on the premises which was let out - HELD THAT:- We find that assessee’s claim, that assessee was also using the said let out premises as godown has been rejected. This aspect has to be looked from the point of view that the said prices was let out to the assessee’s wife itself. Hence the assessee claim that the said prices was also being partly used for godown purposes cannot be said to be ex facie bogus. In our considered opinion assessee’s conduct in this regard cannot be said to be contumacious warranting levy of penalty. Levy of penalty on account of tax u/s 115 JB under MAT - assessee’s claim was that it was falling under 115 JA. This claim was also supported by the certificate of the auditors. In this view of the matter assessee’s conduct cannot be said to be contumacious warranting levy of penalty. If the claim was wrong the responsibility was that of the auditor who duly certified the same. Hence it was a mistake on the part of the auditor and the assessee cannot be visited with penalty for the mistake of its consultant. Assessee need not be visited with the rigours of penal provisions u/s 271(1)(c). We draw support from the larger bench of honourable apex court in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that the authorities may not levy the penalty if the conduct of the assessee was not contumacious. - Decided in favour of assessee
|