Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1270 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) - addition of the motor car expenses, depreciation and interest on such loan - HELD THAT:- There is no such disallowance of such depreciation and motor car expenses and interest on loan from AY 2010-11 to 2013-14. Although, the vehicle was registered in the name of the Director of the assessee Company, however, the expenses were incurred by the assessee company itself and the vehicle was used for the business of the assessee Company. All particulars were made available before the A.O and there was no such concealment. In the case of CIT (A) Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. . [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] has held that merely because the assessee has claimed the expenditure which claim was not acceptable or was not accepted by the revenue that by itself could not attract the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - merely because the assessee in the instant case, has accepted the disallowance during the course of assessment proceedings that by itself will not preclude the assessee from taking an alternate argument before the Tribunal during penalty proceedings. Since full particulars are available before the A.O during the course of assessment proceedings, therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in my opinion is not attracted on motor car expenses and depreciation Disallowance of ad-hoc expenses of the business promotion expenditure - Addition is on ad-hoc basis. As held in various decisions that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable on ad-hoc disallowance of expenses. It is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) - Decided in favour of assessee.
|