TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment proceedings for the year under consideration, it can be inferred that there is no mensrea on part of the assessee so as to attract the penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. We are therefore, of the opinion that no interference is required to be made in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as no question of law much less any substantial question of law proposed or otherwise arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal. Revenue appeal dismissed. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 338 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 6-9-2022 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR MANISH J SHAH(1320) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 OR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee had made legally unsustainable and wholly untenable claim in its books of accounts which was discovered by the Assessing Officer only during scrutiny assessment proceedings? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has made legally unsustainable and untenable claim of interest expenses in the audited Profit Loss Account during the year under consideration and the same was shown as prior period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e regular provision as well as in the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. The Assessing Officer also disallowed 1,13,55,000/- under section 14A of the Act and considering both the disallowances levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100% amounting to Rs.1,46,48,271/-. 5. It is not in dispute that the assessee accounted for provision of interest twice by mistake and on realising such mistake, necessary rectification entries were passed in the subsequent year and the same was offered as income. 6. CIT(Appeals) in the appeal filed by the assessee deleted the penalty on account of disallowance made under section 14A of the Act but confirmed the penalty with regard to addition of provision for interest expenses made t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act more particularly, when the mistake was rectified by the assessee in subsequent year. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Varun Patel for the appellant Revenue submitted that the assessee ought to have filed revised return on realisation of the mistake and could not have rectified such mistake by showing the said interest expenditure as prior period income in subsequent year. It was submitted that for the year under consideration, the mistake was not rectified and therefore, the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(Appeals) were justified for levy of penalty upon the assessee on the expenditure which could not have been claimed by the assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
