Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2024 (9) TMI 643

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said penalty be cancelled. 2) Gross Profit addition 2.1 THAT the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that question of levy of any penalty on account of GP addition made by the Hon'ble ITAT could not arise inasmuch as no such addition was made by the learned AO in the original assessment and consequently there was no initiation of penalty proceedings on this score. 2.2 THAT the teamed CIT(A) erroneously concluded that addition on account of GP was first made by the CIT(A) in lieu of addition u/s. 40A(2)(a) which was deleted by the learned CIT(A) and the addition on account of GP was reduced by Hon'ble ITAT and the deletion was confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT and thus consequently erred i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as to whether it is for concealing income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and without striking out the inappropriate words in the SCN u/s. 274 is bad in law and as such deserves to be cancelled. 4.4 THAT the learned AO and CIT(A) has seriously erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 242 Taxman 180 upholding decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory. (359 ITR 564) 5. GENERAL 5.1 The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any one or more of the grounds of appeals as may be required in the nature and circumstances of the case. 5.2 The appellant prays leave to adduce such further evidence to substant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 5,59,740/-]. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, who vide impugned order 20.09.2023 confirmed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act as imposed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Being aggrieved with the decision of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 20.09.2023, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal in the second round of appeal. 6. We have heard LD counsels from both the sides & perused the material available on record. We find that the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on 3 grounds as under : 1. GP Addition of Rs. 1,76,53,871/- sustained by ITAT on estimate basis. 2. Disallowance of proportionate interest paid on secured & unsecured loan to the extent of Rs. 3,08,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... sustained in case of ad hoc/estimated disallowances. 4.0 In response, the Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below and vehemently argued that penalty had been rightly imposed and, therefore deserved to be upheld. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The only question for our consideration is whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is sustainable with respect to disallowance which has been partially deleted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) on ad hoc/estimated basis. It is undisputed in the present appeal that the quantification of the alleged concealment/inaccurate particulars is only an estimate and it is settled law that penalty is not attracted on estimated addit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the ITAT. But, we are unable to accept the contention of LD CIT(A) that mere addition / disallowance warrant the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. In this regard, the contention of LD AR is that the non-charging of interest on certain loans may result into a disallowance out of interest paid to others but the assessee cannot be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or concealed any income, as all the facts were disclosed truly & fully. In this regard, LD AR relied on the judgement passed in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts, 322 ITR 158 (SC). We further find that the expenditure of Rs. 5,59,740/- towards professional fee of architect for guest house renovation was treated as capital expendi....