9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 6th June 2018, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai, confirming the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") amounting to Rs. 1,60,776, for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The Registry has pointed out a delay of 153 days in filing the appeal. The assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the auditor has submitted the details of unpaid TDS amounting to Rs. 19,861. On a query being made, the assessee submitted that it has voluntarily disallowed the TDS amount under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, being of the view that the assessee should have disallowed the corresponding expenditure and not the TDS amount, disallowed the amount of Rs. 5,40,170, under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... report, but also during the assessment proceedings. He submitted, due to a bonafide mistake, the assessee had disallowed the TDS amount instead of the expenditure corresponding to such TDS. He submitted,there being neither furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income, the penalty imposed should be deleted. 6. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tative. In any case of the matter, the Assessing Officer has not doubted either the genuineness of the expenditure claimed or the payments made. The only reason for which the expenditure was disallowed is due to non-deduction of tax at source. In other words, it is statutory disallowance. That being the case, the assessee cannot be accused of submitting inaccurate particulars of income or conceali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
