Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 291 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Addition on account of advertisement for non deduction of tds - Held that:- Disallowance has been sustained on the ground that necessary evidence and voucher of advertisement were not produced and the TDS was not deducted. We find that this is not at all a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. All the details including identity of the payee were there. Disallowance has solely been done as the assessee was not able to produce the concerned evidence of expenditure being of advertisement in nature. Hence, if a claim of the assessee is rejected, the same does not automatically lead to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). See RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT]. Disallowance made u/s. 43B on account of remittance of service tax collected to the government account - Held that:- Here also we find that all the particulars were duly and correctly disclosed. It is not a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Rejection of the assessee’s claim as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd.(supra) will not automatically led to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Furthermore, the view that section 43B is not attracted on service tax collected has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Noble & Hewitt (I) P. Ltd. [2007 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Hence, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on this addition is also not sustainable. Due to absence of satisfaction and identification of the specific charge for levy of penalty, the penalty in this case deserves to be deleted on this account also. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|