TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No.44/Ind/2013 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2013 - Joginder Singh And R C Sharma, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri R A Verma For the Respondent : Shri S N Goyal ORDER:- PER : R C Sharma This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dated 1.11.2012 for the A.Y. 2007-08 in the matter of deletion of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a transport contractor. During the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act, there has to be concealment of particulars of income of the assessee or the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. Present is not the case of concealment of income or it is not the case of Revenue that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The department has not found out that the assessee has furnished any factual incorrect information and the assessee is not guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In our opinion, the condition laid down in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not complied with. Being so, levy of penalty is not justified merely because the assessee has claimed certain expenditure that expenditure is not eligible in view of the provisions of Section 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bogus and the same was genuine business expenditure, mere ignorance on the part of the assessee to deduct TDS thereon will not render the assessee in default u/s 271(1) . He further placed on record the order of I.T.A.T., Coordinate Bench wherein exactly on similar issue, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1) was held to be not justified in case of CIT vs. Seaway Shipping Ltd (supra), New Horizon India Ltd. vs. DCIT; 19 Taxman.com.44, L.G. Choudhary vs. DCIT; ITA No. 228/Ahd/2010 order dated 16th March, 2012. As per the learned counsel for the assessee, even during the course of assessment proceedings itself vide letter dated 21.12.2009 the assessee himself has come forward to offer the disallowance in respect of freight payment on which TDS was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal against the same. The issue with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1) on the plea of non-deduction of tax u/s 40a(ia) has been considered by the coordinate Bench in the case of Seaway Shipping Ltd and L.G. Choudhary (supra) wherein exactly on the similar issue, levy of penalty was held to be not justified. 7. With regard to assessee claim not being accepted by the AO and for which penalty is imposed u/s 271(1)(c), in this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158 has categorically observed that By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars . Accordingly, it was held that decline of assessee s claim of interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
