9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G' New Delhi dated 27.01.2009 passed in ITA No. 2210/Del./2008 for the assessment year 2001-02, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- 1. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w in confirming the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty of Rs.8,00,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though the penalty is leviable on contravention of the provisions of a civil statute like Income Tax Act and, it is settled law that breach of a civil obligation attracts levy of penalty whether the contravention was made by the defaul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made additions on account of disallowance and also levied penalty on that ground. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty holding that mere disallowance was not a ground for levying penalty in absence of any concealment or giving of inaccurate particulars. This view has been upheld by the Tribunal by observing as under:- "We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the penalty order clearly sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of an expenditure, no penalty is leviable. In regard to the PF and ESI payments which have been disallowed it is noticed that in all cases, the payments have been made before the due date of filing the return. The decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case referred to upon by the Ld. AR in the case of PM Electronics Ltd. (supra) would be squarely applicable and the payment i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed debatable issue for claiming the expenditure and disallowance is no ground for levying penalty. Mere erroneous claim in absence of any concealment or giving of inaccurate particulars is no ground for levying penalty. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that there was no confusion with regard to payment of employees' contribution and the said contribution was also delayed. Assuming the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
