9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n water purifying filters at residential buildings. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 declaring the income at Rs. 40,22,030/-. However, the total income determined by the concerned Assessing Officer in the assessment order, dated 22.12.2008 was Rs. 1,77,14,890/-, including the fees of Rs. 79,98,870/- paid for technical services to M/s. Filtres Holding Pte. Ltd., Singapore. The enhancement of income by the Assessing Officer was due to three disallowances made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). Out of three disallowances made by the Assessing Officer, two disallowances were deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore by the order dated 28.4.2008. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld to be liable for deduction of tax; the respondent herein remitted the payments based on the certificate given by the Chartered Accountant; and no violations were reported in Form No.3CD. On facts, both the authorities have concluded that failure to deduct tax by the respondent herein was a bona fide mistake and hence, this is not a case to levy penalty. It is also held by both the authorities that assessee has neither concealed the income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The question as to whether disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 79,98,870/- would amount to concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act? The very question was decided in the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore. It appears that there was genuine confusion on the question as to whether the payment made to a foreign party was liable for levying tax in India or not. It is also not in dispute that disallowance as made by the Assessing Officer was upheld by the appellate authorities. However, the respondent-assessee has filed detailed statement, explaining as to why it is not liable to be imposed with penalty. After hearing the assessee and after considering the material on record, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have concurrently concluded that it is difficult to say that the respondent has either concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of the income. As has been held by the Apex Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
