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>ITAT affirms CIT(A) order canceling penalty under IT Act; incorrect claims not concealment</h1> <h3>ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi Versus M/s. AT. Invofin India Pvt. Ltd.</h3> ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi Versus M/s. AT. Invofin India Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:Appeal against CIT(A) order canceling penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:1. The department appealed against the CIT(A) order canceling a penalty of Rs. 13,97,175 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment was framed at an income of Rs. 1,06,09,211 under section 143(3) of the Act, where the Assessing Officer (A.O) added Rs. 41,10,546 on account of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income under section 14A. The A.O also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) based on the disallowance. The CIT(A) observed that penalty can only be imposed if there is concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, not merely for making an untenable claim.2. The CIT(A) noted that penalty and assessment proceedings are distinct, and while an addition may be warranted in the assessment, a penalty requires proof of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) highlighted that the assessee disclosed all material, and non-acceptance of a claim does not automatically lead to penalty under section 271(1)(c). Citing various cases, including CIT Vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., the CIT(A) emphasized that rejection of a claim does not imply concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.3. The department contended that the penalty was justified, supported by the A.O's observations and previous cases. However, the assessee argued that the disallowance difference did not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The ITAT considered both arguments and found that the assessee had disclosed all details regarding dividend income and disallowance under section 14A. The ITAT referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that a mere incorrect claim does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars.4. Ultimately, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A) order, ruling that the disallowance disagreement did not indicate concealment or inaccurate particulars of income. Following the precedent set by the Supreme Court, the ITAT concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified solely based on the non-acceptance of the assessee's claim. Therefore, the department's appeal was dismissed, affirming the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
