TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d:- 11-5-2022 - Shri Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) And Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member) For the Assessee : Mr. Shiv Prakash, AR For the Revenue : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [National Faceless Appeal Centre] [in short the Ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2013-14 in relation to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the order dated 17.03.2020 of the AO levying penalty of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is untenable and unsustainable. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 29.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.4,72,97,520/-. In the scrutiny assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act total income was assessed at Rs.4,87,97,530/- after making disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee has claimed deduction for payment made to the School of Human Genetics and Population Health u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, in order to verification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial on record. Before us, the Ld. counsel has submitted that the assessee voluntarily withdrawn the appeal and also offered to increase the amount of addition from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.35,00,000/- by way of seeking rectification and there was no default of furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income, therefore appeal of the assessee should be allowed. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities. 3.1 We find that the claim of the assessee of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer after due inquiry from the person who has issued certificate u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act and said inquiry was duly confronted to the assessee. The assessee has failed to rebut the finding of the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of bogus donation to the donors and they have refunded amount after deducting service charges. Assessee has given donation to School of Human Genetics and Population Health(SHGPH) and subsequently taken deduction u/s 35(1)li) of I.T. Act. Therefore, the claim of the taxpayer was disallowed u/s.35(1)ii) to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/-; and penalty proceedings us.271(1)c) were initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The taxpayer preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) which was later withdrawn by the assessee and thereby the assessment order was confirmed. 4.3 The appellant has claimed that as it had furnished full details of the payment, produced the receipts of Rs. 20 lakhs, letter of confirmation regarding r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty proceedings was not made in the rectification order dated 25.11.2016 is meaningless as the initiation had been made in the assessment order where the finding of the disallowance of claim was discussed. Furthermore, it is not the case that the appellant requested for a rectification of the assessed income on its own motion. In fact, only after a show cause notice issued for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the AO in August 2016, did the appellant give the entire details whereby the mistake apparent from record to the tune of 20Lakhs (on account of donation to SHGPH being Rs. 35 lakh not 15 lakh) was brought to the knowledge of the AO with the plea that as it had voluntary agreed to the addition and had also withdrawn the appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bearing on the levy of penalty for an issue on which assessment has already been completed with an addition. In view of the same, ground number 3 is rejected. 4.7 In the written submissions the appellant has stated that as the penalty was levied on the basis of the show cause notice u/s 274 which was in the printed format which has not been appropriately marked to show as to for which of the two defaults i.e. concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars on which the A.O. proposes to impose penalty and that this would lead to an inference as to non-application of mind thus vitiating the imposition of penalty. It is very important to state here that in the response dated 16.08.2016 to the show cause notice the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
