TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 838
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbai on 26/6/2019 levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the income tax act, 1961 (the act) of Rs. 877,980 is dismissed. 02. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred an appeal against confirmation of that penalty. 03. Grounds in ITA No. 1145/MUM/2024 are as under :- "A. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Commissioner of Income-Tax Appeals (the CIT Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 8,77,980/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act 1961,. B. The CIT Appeals erred in levying penalty ignoring the below explanations given by the Appellant. i. CIT appeals made adhoc additions @50% of expenses of Rs. 56,66,854/- resulting in addition of Rs. 28,33,427/-, Disallowance was in respect of the expenses to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 3,189,921, repairs and maintenance expenditure of Rs. 68,386, sundry expenses of Rs. 455,836/- and travelling expenses and transportation expenditure totaling to Rs. 5,666,854. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of these expenses and justify the claim. The assessee merely filed the month wise details of the expenses however no supporting documents were filed to substantiate the claim therefore the learned assessing officer passed an assessment order disallowing 50% of Rs. 5,666,854/- under section 37 (1) of the act. It was further noted that during the year the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 7934/- on account of income in respect of units of non-residents under section 196A. The assessee has not filed the return of income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessing officer are correct and accordingly on the merits also he upheld the levy of the penalty. 09. Assessee being aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us. The learned authorized representative submitted only the case law compilation consisting of four judicial precedents stating that penalty should not have been levied on the assessee on disallowance made on ad hoc basis and further it has been made purely on the basis of non-furnishing of the complete details with respect to the supporting evidences. It was submitted that assessee has furnished the details of expenditure month wise format. The learned assessing officer did not ask for the detailed explanation of each and every expenditure. Non-furnishing of the informa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pheld. Thus the action of the lower authorities in confirming the penalty cannot be found fault with. 011. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find that during the course of the reassessment proceedings where the notice under section 148 of the income tax act was issued the assessee filed its return of income. The assessee did not file its original return of income. When the reassessment proceedings culminated into an assessment order, the addition was made with respect to the reasons for which reassessment proceedings were initiated and further the learned assessing officer asked about the details of the expenses incurred by the assessee and claimed as deduction under secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....doubt the assessee has submitted before us many judicial precedents wherein where there is an ad hoc disallowance of the expenditure; it is held that penalty cannot be levied. Though this cannot be a universal principle. We find that had the case is that the assessee is unable to substantiate the amount of expenditure; the learned assessing officer should have disallowed 100 % percent of such expenditure by giving a sufficient reason. By disallowing 50% and allowing 50% of that expenditure, the learned assessing officer is also not clear whether the assessee has concealed income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In the assessment order the charge is not specific. In the penalty order, twin charges are invoked for the levy o....