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>Tax Penalty Dispute: Expense Claim Rejection Alone Does Not Automatically Trigger Punitive Measures Under Section 271(1)(c)</h1> <h3>M/s. Diamond Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (4), Ahmedabad</h3> M/s. Diamond Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (4), Ahmedabad - TMI Issues:Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate particulars of income regarding process loss disallowance.Analysis:The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2013-14, challenging the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for sustaining the disallowance of process loss. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of process loss amounting to Rs. 45,17,186 during the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee explained that the shrinkage of fabrics during processing necessitated compensation to customers for any shortage or wastage. However, the majority of bills were related to local sales, leading to the disallowance of the claimed process loss.The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who upheld the penalty, prompting the assessee to further challenge the decision. The counsel argued that a mere disallowance of expenses does not automatically attract penalty under section 271(1)(c), citing relevant court decisions. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' orders.Upon review, the ITAT found that the penalty was imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income regarding the process loss of Rs. 4,48,825. The CIT(A) had reduced the disallowance to Rs. 4,48,825 from the originally disallowed amount. Referring to legal precedents, the ITAT emphasized that a claim not sustainable in law does not necessarily constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Merely rejecting an assessee's claim does not warrant a penalty under section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty, allowing the assessee's appeal.In conclusion, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and ordering the deletion of the penalty. The decision was pronounced on 17-09-2021.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
