9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 08.09.2022 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) confirming penalty imposed of Rs.1,70,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity. On 03.11.2014, Security Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai upheld the decision of Security Exchang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccepted the disallowance. Based on the disallowance made of Rs.5,00,000/-, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and ultimately passed an order imposing penalty of Rs.1,70,000/-, alleging that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Though, the assessee challenged the imposition of penalty by filing an appeal before ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s such payment is not for any offense or is prohibited by any law. From the aforesaid facts, it is very much clear that the assessee did furnish all relevant particulars relating to the payment made to SEBI not only in the audit report, but in the original return of income. In the revised return of income, the assessee has merely claimed the payment as deduction, which was not claimed in the origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bond Trading Company, 2011 (10) TMI 172. 5. Therefore, merely because assessee accepted the disallowance, it will not lead to the conclusion that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts of the present appeal is unsustainable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty imposed. 6. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
