TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoked by the AO. CIT(A) also overlooked the actual intention of the penalty proceedings which clearly set out that when there is inaccurate particulars or concealment on part of the assessee, then the same should be proceeded. But in the present case, the assessee has disclosed all the factual aspects before the AO which cannot be stated that there was concealment of particulars of income or the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Assessee has also filed all the details during the regular assessment proceedings. It can be seen that the AO was not sure under which provisions of Section 271 the assessee is liable for penalty - merely because the assessee company did not challenge the addition before the CIT(A), is no gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) whereby no specific allegation with regard to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars has been levied. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars filed by the assessee. 5. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on a disallowance of ₹ 25,64,049/- made by the A.O invoking the provision of Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. (ii) Tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 064,49/- and addition on account of disallowance of interest expenses amounting to ₹ 28,45,000/- The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty proceedings were completed on 30/09/2015 by imposing penalty at ₹ 16,71,400/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the notice issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid as it did not specify the charge against which the penalty is levied. Even in the assessment order, there is no separate charge mentioned. Thus, not only the notice issued to the assessee u/s 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars of income. Therefore, there was no concealment on the part of the assessee. This was a simple case of disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) as the assessee was under the belief that TDS is not liable to be deducted on payment of NBFCs. Thus, the authorities cited by the Ld. AR are applicable in the present case. In respect of interest expenses, the same was not concealed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Thus, there is no concealment. Thus, Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not correctly invoked by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) also overlooked the actual intention of the penalty proceedings which clearly set out that when there is inaccurate particulars or concealment on part of the assessee, then the same should be procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Besides that in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 the same issue has been decided by the Tribunal in ITA No. 1704/Del/2016 order dated 16.02.2018 it is held that merely because the assessee company did not challenge the addition before the CIT(A), is no ground to levy penalty against the assessee company. Thus, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is set aside. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
