TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sclosure. This is self evident as he did not initiate any penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. It is a settled position in law as held by the Apex Court in CIT v/s. Reliance Petroproducts [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] – where all details of expenses and income had been furnished in its return, mere disallowing a claim of expenditure would not by itself lead to the conclusion that there has been concealment of income and/or filing of inaccurate particulars, warranting penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - Income Tax Reference No. 135 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 25-11-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And A. K. Menon, JJ. Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar with Mr. Rohan Deshpande, for the Appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income chargeable to tax. Further, no penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while passing the Assessment Order. (b) Being aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer disallowing the expenditure of ₹ 6.48 lakhs, the Applicant-Assessee preferred an Appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)]. In the quantum proceedings, the CIT(A)while dismissing the Applicant-Assessee's Appeal on merits also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the claim of deduction of ₹ 6.48 lakhs as deferred revenue expenditure. The CIT(A), thereafter by a separate order also imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case did not find any justification to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is the CIT(A) who in an appeal filed by the Applicant-Assessee has initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and also imposed penalty of ₹ 3.60 lakhs upon Applicant-Assesseee. This view was upheld by the Tribunal. The entire basis of the imposition of penalty is that the claim had been disallowed in the earlier Assessment Years and, therefore, making claim in the subject Assessment Year would amount to filing incorrect/false particulars of income. This, according to the Tribunal, would justifying of invoking Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, the fact that the claim for expenditure made in the earli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
