Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1097 - AT - Income TaxPenalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c)- deliberate attempt to conceal the income by filing inaccurate particulars of income - undisclosed sales and the addition made under section 69C - CIT-A reducing penalty to 100% from 200% - Held that:- We note that the assessee disclosed the income of ₹ 46,00,000/- only after the survey proceedings, thus we up hold the levy of penalty and reversed the order of ld. CIT (A) qua this issue in respect of the income disclosed by the assessee. Penalty in respect of undisclosed sales though the addition made by the AO was sustained by this Tribunal and the same has attained the finality, however, we find that the penalty equivalent to 100% of tax to be evaded on this amount is a reasonable and proper decision taken by the ld. CIT (A) which does not require any interference. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the ld. CIT (A) qua this issue. Penalty in respect of disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- The disallowance was made only because of non deduction of TDS by the assessee. When the claim of expenditure other-wise not found to be bogus or patently impermissible the disallowance made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) would not lead to conclusion that the assessee has either concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Once the case of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not fall under the category of concealment of particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income, the mere disallowance because of non compliance of the provisions of the Act ipso facto would not lead to levy of penalty. No error or illegality in the order of the ld. CIT (A) in deleting the penalty. Addition made under section 69C was due to the reason that the assessee failed to explain the source of said expenses. Accordingly, we concur with the view of ld. CIT (A) to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax to be evaded of such income. The order of ld. CIT (A) is upheld. Penalty on the addition/disallowance made under section 24(a) - Held that:- The said addition was deleted by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the assessee against the revision order. This fact of deletion of the addition has not been disputed by the revenue. Accordingly when the Tribunal has already deleted the addition, then the penalty under section 271(1)(c) has no leg to stand. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the ld. CIT (A) qua this issue. - Appeal of revenue partly allowed.
|