Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1126 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - inappropriate limb in the notice in the penalty was not struck off - HELD THAT:- CIT-A has duly noted the assessee’s submission in his order. However while adjudicating the issue he has omitted to adjudicate this ground raised before him. Hence in our considered opinion the interest of justice requires that this issue should be remitted to the file of learned CIT-A. CIT-A is directed to consider the issue afresh after giving the assessee proper' opportunity of being heard. CIT-A should also take into account the various case laws on the subject as available and as canvassed by the assessee as aforesaid. The learned CIT-A should also take into account the decision of honourable of apex court in the case of CIT Vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar [1962 (1) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] . Accordingly this issue raised is remitted to the file of learned CIT-A with directions as above. Satisfaction not recorded by AO at the time of initiation of penalty - Assessee doesn't deserve to succeed on this ground. The assessing officer has after disallowance of the impugned amount duly noted in the assessment order that “penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated”. Consequent to amendment in section 271 by insertion of section 271(1B) duly applicable in the extant assessment year, this is sufficient satisfaction and the penalty cannot be annulled on the ground of lack of satisfaction by the assessing officer. Penalty may not be levied on bonafide and inadvertent error of the assessee - In our considered opinion showing a huge amount of foreign currency translation loss on capital account by a multinational company as revenue loss can by no stretch of imagination be considered to be a bonafide - assessee was very well aware that it was deliberately showing capital account transaction loss as loss on revenue account. Hence by no stretch of imagination it can be said that there was any inadvertent error. It was fully considered decision of the assessee to show the capital loss as revenue loss. Hence this limb of the argument is dismissed and inadvertent error. Assessee voluntarily disclosed during the course of assessment proceedings - by no stretch of imagination it can be said that there was any involuntary disclosure by the assessee. The assessing officer has duly detected the huge amount of capital transaction loss. He had asked the assessee the detail thereof in these circumstances assessee had no option but to disclose the same. By no stretch of imagination it can be said to be voluntarily disclosure. The decision of the apex court in the case of K.P.Madhusudanan fully applies on the facts of the case. Hence this ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed. As relied upon the tax auditor’s report - We find that the tax audit is conducted on the basis of information and explanation of the assessee. The assessee, a multinational company cannot put the blame on tax auditor, when the tax auditor is not present to defend. It is not the case that there is acceptance on record by the tax auditor that he is guilty of any mistake. Hence, this plea of the assessee is not acceptable. Asessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes
|