TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of age are capable enough to advice and carry on such business even on their own. Moreover, when the Assessing Officer himself has allowed the commission of ₹ 5,00,000 having been paid to Mr. Sanjeev Khurana, merely disallowing the commission payment on the basis of subjective satisfaction without calling upon the assessee as to what type of advice and know-how has been provided by Ms. Divya Khanna to earn the business income on which tax has already been paid, the penalty cannot be imposed nor does it amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. No penalty under section 271(1)(c) to be imposed - Decided in favour of assessee. - I. T. A. No. 5721/Delhi/2014 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2017 - N. K. Saini (Accountant Member) And Kuldip S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are not relevant to this case hence the order is not as per merits of the case. 6. That the penalty of ₹ 1,81,800 imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer and upheld under section 250 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) be deleted in the interest of equity and merits of the case. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : On the basis of completed assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) at the total income of ₹ 60,43,239 as against the returned income of ₹ 46,81,685 and taxable income under section 115JB of the Act on book profit of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to be paid by the assessee. 5. The assessee challenged the penalty order by way of an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who has dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by challenging the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. We have heard the learned authorised representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Undisputedly, the assessee is engaged in the business of derivatives, jobbing and investment, that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act has since attained fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordingly, it is found to be a fit case for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act read with Explanations thereto. Moreover, inspite giving two opportunities vide penalty notices under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued on January 8, 2013 and July 19, 2013, the assessee has not furnished any reply not attended any proceedings. At the time of assessment proceedings also Ms. Divya Khanna was not produced rather her father attended the proceedings. I am convinced that with a clear view to reduce tax liability the assessee has debited this admissible expenses of ₹ 6,00,000. 10. Bare perusal of the penalty order apparently goes to prove that there is no finding whatsoever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed by the assessee, because that is the only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. To attract penalty, the details supplied in the return must not be accurate, not exact or correct, not according to the truth or erroneous. Where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
