TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal allowed, specific findings on non-business expenses crucial for penalty under IT Act!</h1> <h3>M/s Vijay Solvex Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle-2, Alwar</h3> M/s Vijay Solvex Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle-2, Alwar - TMI Issues:1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 based on adhoc disallowance of expenses.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) regarding the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The relevant issue revolved around the disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee under the head 'other expenses' during the assessment year. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000 out of the total expenses claimed by the assessee, leading to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 33,600. The Coordinate Bench of ITAT had confirmed the disallowance at Rs. 1,00,000. The main contention was whether such adhoc disallowance could be a valid basis for imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.During the appeal process, the assessee argued that the AO had not provided specific findings regarding the disallowed expenses and had made the disallowance on a broad comparison basis without identifying any specific non-business transactions. The assessee cited various legal precedents supporting the non-levy of penalty in cases of adhoc or estimated disallowances. The Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the lower authorities' orders.Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the AO's disallowance was adhoc and lacked specific findings on non-business expenses. The Tribunal emphasized that unless the AO establishes identifiable non-business transactions or bogus expenditures, adhoc disallowances in the quantum proceedings cannot serve as a valid basis for imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the ground taken by the assessee and deleted the penalty imposed.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the necessity for specific findings on non-business expenses to justify a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing identifiable non-business transactions before penalizing an assessee based on adhoc disallowances during the assessment proceedings.
TaxTMI 