Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1178 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty - Guest house maintenance expenses - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - HELD THAT:- Assessee continuously claimed the expenditure incurred on guest houses as allowable business deductions since A.Y. 2002-03 till A.Y. 2007-08, and no disallowance has ever been sustained by the ld. Commissioner. Even the finding of the ld. Commissioner in the instant case is very clear to the effect that neither the element of concealment of income nor any inaccurate particulars of income furnished in the return. Further observation of the ld. Commissioner to the effects” that the AO has not brought out any falsity or bogus claim of expenditure incorporated under the above heads of expenses” goes to show that the said finding of the ld. Commissioner is clinching in its right perspective. Even otherwise, nothing material is available on record to controvert the findings of the Ld. Commissioner, hence we are inclined not to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner as the same does not suffer from any perversity, impropriety or illegality. Resultantly, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue Department stands dismissed. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the head “Repairs of the road not belonging to the Assessee” - Commissioner deleted the said penalty on the ground that there is neither the element of concealment of income nor any inaccurate particulars of income furnished in the return - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts as the addition qua “repairs and maintenance of assets not belonging to the company”, has already been deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench, hence no penalty could survive and consequently the ground no. 2 is dismissed being infructuous. Penalty under the head “payments made to the transporters” - HELD THAT:- Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide its order [2019 (12) TMI 203 - ITAT RAIPUR] allowed the ground raised by the Assessee in the said appeal before the Tribunal qua addition under the head “payments made to the transporters” against which penalty is under consideration and remitted the issue back for statistical purposes to the file of AO for determining the allowability of expenses, hence the penalty imposed by the AO cannot survive. The Ld. DR also did not controvert the said factual position. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition on account of addition under the head “Land Compensation and Rehabilitation Expenses” - Department did not find the claim of the Assessee as maintainable and treated the same as “Capital in nature” as against “Revenue in nature” claimed by the Assessee and made the addition - HELD THAT:- As for the previous years, the appeals against the said sustenance of expenses as “capital in nature” is pending before the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court, therefore, issue qua addition also become debatable issue and support the bonafide claim of the Assessee and therefore there is no base to entail the penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act, hence on the aforesaid considerations, deliberations and observations, while respectfully following the propositions laid down by the Hon”ble Apex Court and High Courts to the effects that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceeding are altogether different and merely because amount was disallowed does not ipso facto lead to levy of penalty and the penalty can not be levied simply on the reason that addition has been sustained. Further mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and where no information given in the Return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the Assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars.
|