TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not attract penalty 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, when the assessee furnishes all the relevant particulars in his return which are not found to be inaccurate. There is no dearth of decisions holding that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on disallowance of expenses, which were not otherwise bogus - See SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY [ 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.896/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2019 - Shri R.S. Syal, VP And Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM For the Assessee : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar For the Revenue : Shri Pankaj Garg ORDER PER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty is being initiated, the levy of penalty was held to be invalid. 3.1 Furthermore, the Ld. AR contended that in so far as disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act, there are various decisions where it has been held that penalty cannot be imposed. Penalty is not leviable on disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the decision in the case of M/s. 4A Financial Securities Limited Vs. DCIT in ITA No.1036/Del/2018 for the assessment year 2013-14 decided on 26.07.2018. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR conceded to the judicial pronouncements placed before us by the Ld. AR. 5. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions and have given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding, the assessee should be ready with his defense for which penalty has been levied by the Revenue Authority. It could not be generally done that for concealment of income and also for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income , penalty has been levied. The limb for which penalty is levied, should be specific in the penalty notice allowing opportunity to the assessee to get ready with his defense. Further, the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery (supra.) as stated by the Ld. AR is the present judgment on the issue which is therefore, relevant. 5.1 Regarding imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l not attract penalty 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, when the assessee furnishes all the relevant particulars in his return which are not found to be inaccurate. There is no dearth of decisions holding that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on disallowance of expenses, which were not otherwise bogus. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct to delete the penalty. Respectfully, following the directions and ruling of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, in Samson Perinchery (supra.) and decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty from the hands of the assessee. 6. In the result, appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
