| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 0335 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
When all such material was available before AO with two views expressed and the AO took one of such views then where was the question of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof? Law does not say that wherever AO disallow any claim, penalty should invariably be levied.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) - Concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate of income -
Assessee-company was engaged in the business of distribution of hydraulic excavators. AO made an addition in respect of transfer pricing adjustment due to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and disallowances of advance payments towards corporate membership. Appellate authority allowed transfer pricing adjustment issue in favour of the assessee but confirmed the other two additions. Assessee did not prefer any appeal against the said order of appellate authority confirming the additions on account of the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and on the advance payments. AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). CIT(A) held that all the facts were discussed in return of income and tax audit report and audited financials subsequently make it clear that assessee did not conceal anything nor did they furnish any inaccurate particulars. Held: When assessee had revealed all the facts and allegation was that in spite of view of auditors that since tax had not been deducted at source on some amount, details of which were well furnished and such amounts were prima facie inadmissible under section 40(a)(ia). When all such material was available before AO with two views expressed and the AO took one of such views then where was the question of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof? Law does not say that wherever AO disallow any claim, penalty should invariably be levied.
Followed:CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1683 (SC)Relied:CIT v. AT & T Communication Services India (P) Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 257 (Del-HC) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 1630 (Del-HC) CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del-HC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1957 (Del-HC) MAG Construction (P) Ltd. v. ITO Ward-6 (1), New Delhi in (ITA No. 6518//DEL/2013, dt. 26-2-2016)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|