| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 0434 (Panaji-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Where all the details including identity of payee were submitted and disallowance was done solely on the basis that assessee was not able to produce the concerned evidence of expenditure, therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not attracted.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Addition on account of advertisement for non-deduction of TDS - Validity -
AO made disallowance on the ground that necessary evidence and voucher for payment of advertisement charges were not produced and TDS was not deducted. Thus, AO imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) alleging that assessee concealed particulars of income. Held: Disallowance was sustained on the ground that necessary evidence and voucher of advertisement were not produced and TDS was not deducted. This was not at all a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. All the details including identity of payee were there. Disallowance was done solely on the basis that assessee was not able to produce the concerned evidence of expenditure. Hence, if claim of assessee was rejected, the same did not automatically lead to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Followed:CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1683 (SC)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 43B
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|