9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the grounds inter alia that:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that assessee is repeatedly ignoring the findings of Tax Auditor about the inadmissibility of expenses for A.Y. 2012-13 and claimed inadmissible expenses not only in the instant year but also in preceding year. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty ignoring the provisions of sec. 27i(i)(c) of the Act. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the DCIT 9(3X2) be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also not in dispute that penalty has been initiated on the basis of two additions made by the Assessing Officer viz. making disallowance/addition of Rs.5,33,08,153/- and Rs.9,58,000/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of prior period expenses respectively. 6. Assessee by moving an application under rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules sought to support the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on the following technical grounds also. "(i) The statutory show - cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer is not as per the legal requirement, in as much as the irrelevant portion of the notice has not been struck - off. (ii) No penalty can be levied with respect to disallowance made u/s. 40 (a) (ia), being a deemin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. 10. However, on the other hand, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee, in order to repel the argument addressed by Ld. D.R. for the Revenue, relied upon impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and contended inter alia that initiation of the penalty proceedings by way of issuance of notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law as the assessee has not been made aware of as to whether he was being penalized for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income and drew our attention towards the notice of penalty available at page No.1 of the paper book; that even at the time of assessment, Assessing Officer has failed to apply his mind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord "particulars" used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the detail of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By no stretch of imagination can making an incorrect claim tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed by the assessee, because that is the only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would ari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw. 14. Furthermore, when we examine penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act it is again vague and ambiguous being not specific as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of its income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to make aware the assessee under which of the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act it is going to be penalized. 15. For ready perusal penalty notice is extracted as under: Since the Assessing Officer has not issued a valid notice by framing a specific charge to be initiated against the assessee rather invoked both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no intention of the assessee to gain by making inadmissible claim penalty proceedings are not attracted as it appears to be a bonafide mistake. Even otherwise Assessing Officer has not brought on record any evidence if the assessee has claimed bogus, false or ingenuine expenses rather blindly relied upon the "tax audit report" without recording his satisfaction and as such penalty levied by AO is not sustainable. 19. In view of what has been discussed above we are of the considered view that penalty levied by Assessing Officer has been rightly deleted by Ld. CIT(A), hence finding no illegality of perversity in the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Present appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
