TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed by the Assessing Officer in the case on hand cannot be said to be attract the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act to justify and sustain the levy of penalty thereunder. We, therefore, cancel the penalty - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 8816/MUM/2011 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2016 - SHRI JASON P. BOAZ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Smt. Tasneem Varawala For The Respondent : Shri Vivek Ojha ORDER PER JASON P. BOAZ, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-6, Mumbai dated 22/11/2011 confirming the levy of penalty of ₹ 1,18,573/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) for ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usly initiated in this regard. The assessee preferred appeals challenging the aforesaid addition/disallowance of foreign travel expenses of ₹ 3,52,271/- before both the CIT(A)-6 and subsequently before the Tribunal. Both the assessee s appeals were dismissed by orders dated 06/04/2010 of the Ld. CIT(A) and by the Tribunal s order in ITA No.5734/Mum/2010 dated 18/05/2012. 2.2 In the meanwhile, the Assessing Officer took up penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the disallowance of foreign travel expenses amounting to ₹ 3,52,271/- for assessment year 2007-08. After considering the explanation put forth by the assessee and rejecting them, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 23/6/2010 proceeded to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed the detailed explanation and breakup of the foreign business trips undertaken by the two Directors Shri Satish Kapoor and Shri Saroj Shroff alongwith details of air tickets, dates of travel; business meetings held with different parties etc. It was submitted that the fact that the aforesaid expenditure was incurred on foreign travel was never doubted, even by the Addl. CIT, Range 2(3), who on the application u/s. 144A of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer to consider the claim of the assessee to the extent of documentary evidences furnished. In this regard, the Ld. Representative for the assessee further submits that the Assessing Officer, on examination of details filed, observed that the assessee was not able to furnish evidences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In support of the assessee s averments that the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable, the Ld. Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (2010) 322ITR 158(SC) submitting that the facts of the cited case (supra) are similar to those of the assessee in the case on hand. 3.3 Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below in levying and confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in the case on hand. 3.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the assessee accompanying the return of income for assessment year 2006-07. It is seen from the order of assessment for this assessment year 2006-07 that the only difference between the returned income and the assessed income, before set off of brought forward losses, represented the disallowance of foreign travel expenditure, the details of which were discernible from the details supplied by the assessee in the financial statements accompanying its return of income for assessment year 2006-07. In these circumstances it is neither the case of the Assessing Officer that the details furnished by the assessee were inaccurate, erroneous or false nor that the explanations and details furnished by the assessee was not bonafide or that all f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese factual circumstances, there would be no question of imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere claim made in the return of income which is not acceptable by itself, will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the foreign travelling expenses incurred, claimed by the assessee and disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the case on hand cannot be said to be attract the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act to justify and sustain the levy of penalty thereunder. We, therefore, cancel the penalty of ₹ 1,18,573/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 in the case on hand. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
