TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 18-5-2023 - Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Satyajit Goel, C. A.; For the Department : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, [CIT] D. R.; ORDER PER C. N. PRASAD, J.M. 1. These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals)] dated 28.01.2021 for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 in sustaining the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. The Revenue has raised the following common grounds in both these appeals except for the figures:- 1. Whether on the facts in the circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly known to the fact and was protesting against the penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) for the concealment of income for the relevant FY 2009-10 i.e. AY 2010-11. 3. Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law on facts in deleting the imposition of penalty amounting to Rs.83,37,597/- in the light of the CBDT Circular No. 25/2015,based on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd., without taking into consideration that the facts of the case relating to the decision of Hon'ble High Court and the fact of the circular of CBDT are different from the present case. In the present case the case was assessed u/s 144C(4)/143(3) of IT Act, 1961 at norm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. [(2010) 327 ITR 543 (Del)]. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Samin Tekmindz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA. No. 2282/Del/2019 dated 5.08.2019. Ld. Counsel submits that the issue of as to whether when the income of the assessee has been assessed under MAT provisions can there be a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been decided by the jurisdictional High Court holding that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be imposed on the additions/disallowances made while co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5JB of the Act at Rs.137,77,57,881/- and Rs.163,90,47,285/- respectively. Since the tax payable under section 115JB of the Act on book profits is more than the tax payable on income under normal provisions of the Act the Assessing Officer assessed the income under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed penalty orders dated 21.10.2019 and 23.10.2019 for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the income assessed under normal provisions of the Act and with reference to the additions/disallowances made while computing the income under normal provisions of the Act. 7. The assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT (Appeals) contending that no penalty is l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er relied up on judicial precedents of M.R. Soap (P.) Ltd. v. IAC [1988] 32 TTJ (Delhi) 505, Kamta Prasad Mittal v. DCIT (ITAT Lucknow) (ITA.No. 1 45/LKW/15)(dated 21/02/18) where cash Payment made to BSNL cannot be disallowed u/s 40A(3). CIT v Devendrappa M. Kalal [2013] 219 Taxman 122 (Kar)Hence he submitted that this being well established principle, there is no case of any disallowance u/s 40A(3) read with rule 6DD(b) of the Act. 10. With regards to reimbursement of expenses to extent of Rs.9,66,500/- to employees, it is submitted that such reimbursement was towards accumulated bills of tour and travels and individual bills being less than Rs. 20,000/-, there is no case of breach of provisions of section 40A(3) of The Act. In this co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
