9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Patel, A.R. ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2007-08, arises from order of the CIT(A)-1, Vadodara dated 19-05-2017, in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act". 2. The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is directed against the decision of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ising detail and copy of document filed before the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). The ld. counsel has submitted that assessee had accounted the provision for interest twice by mistake and on realizing the mistake rectification entries were passed in the subsequent year and same was shown as income. The ld. counsel has also enclosed the copies of document and income tax return in the paper book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ublic sector undertaking and its accounts are added. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has noticed that assessee has accounted interest expenses twice of Rs. 11.90 crores, therefore, the same was disallowed and also levied penalty of Rs. 1,46,48,271/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act on the combined amount of disallowance u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the ld. counsel decision of 322 ITR 158 (SC) Reliance Petro-Products Pvt. Ltd. & 348 ITR 306 (SC) Price Watercoopers Pvt. Ltd. wherein it is held merely because assessee had claimed expenditure which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to revenue that by itself would not attract penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act. We have also gone through the judicial pronouncement of Price Waterhouse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary correction has already been done by the assessee before detecting the mistake pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration. Looking to the facts and findings of judicial pronouncements as referred above, we consider that decision of ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the impugned penalty is not justified. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
