TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... But the wrong claim does not mean that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particular of income. Similarly, the disallowance of the repair expenses on estimated basis cannot be subject matter of the penalty as the questions for concealing and furnishing inaccurate particular of income does not arise. Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not justifiable in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly, we delete the penalty imposed by the authorities below. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.1755/Ahd/2018 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2019 - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Ms. Purti Vachharajani, AR For the Respondent : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.CIT(A)-1/DCIT Circle- 1(1)(1)/10252/2017-18 dated 18/05/2018 arising in the assessment order passed under s.143(3) of the Income Tax Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly the AO charged the assessee for furnishing the inaccurate particular of income and worked out the penalty of ₹1,28,631/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. Thus the AO levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: 2.4. After going through the facts of the case, it is seen that Assessee had unnecessarily tried to bring the issue as disputed and claimed that no penalty is leviable. All the case laws cited by the appellant in regard and their ratios are not applicable to this case. In the appellant own case the Hon ble ITAT vide composite order bearing ITA No.1093/Ahd/2002 and others dated 04/01/2017 confirmed the addition made by the A.O. on account of Guest House Expenses amounting to ₹ 2,99,142/-. Hence, the depreciation on guest house building and other assets maintained as well as repairs on building and other assets were not allowable as per the order of Hon'ble ITAT and several judgments. 2.5. Appellant's conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ither concealed the income nor filed inaccurate particulars thereof. In recording this finding, the Tribunal felt that if two views of the claim of the assessee were possible, the explanation offered by it could not be said to be false. This, however, is not the factual position in the case before us. The facts of the present case thus are clearly distinguishable. 19. It is true that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of the income of the assessee, but it cannot be disputed that the claim made by the assessee needs to be bona fide. If the claim besides being incorrect in law is mala fide, Explanation 1 to section 271(1) would come into play and work to the disadvantage of the assessee.: Considering the facts discussed herein above and the order of the Hon ble ITAT (Supra), Assessing Officer was justified in levying penalty of ₹ 1,28,631/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars. These grounds of appeal are dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recoveries against the guest house expenses, then there would not have been any disallowance of such expenses. Thus we are of the view that the assessee has not deliberately claimed such expenses. 7.5. In this regard, we find support and guidance from the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158 wherein it was held as under: A glance of provision of section 271(1)( c ) would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The instant case was not the case of concealment of the income. That was not the case of the revenue either. It was an admitted position in the instant case that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It was not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee could not be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The revenue argued that submitting an in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
