Appeal allowed, penalty under section 271(1)(c) canceled. Decision based on case law.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the penalty was not justified based on the details provided during the penalty proceedings, citing the decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd.

---

---

Issues: Whether the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Analysis:
1. Background: The appeal was filed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-3, Mumbai for A.Y. 2009-10, concerning the disallowance of professional charges and interest expenditure in the assessment.

2. Disallowances: The Assessing Officer disallowed professional charges and interest expenditure in the assessment, leading to the levy of a penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3. Arguments: The Assessee argued that the nature of services rendered by the party was proved with the details provided during the penalty proceedings, which were not appreciated earlier. The Assessee did not appeal against the quantum upheld by the CIT(A) due to the small amount involved.

4. Department's Position: The Department contended that since the quantum was upheld and no appeal was made by the Assessee, the penalty was rightfully imposed by the Assessing Officer.

5. Judgment: The Tribunal found that the Assessee had furnished all relevant details during the penalty proceedings, which were not considered by the lower authorities. Citing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal ruled that the mere disallowance of expenditure does not warrant a penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in this case.

6. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee, emphasizing that the penalty was not justified given the circumstances and the details provided during the penalty proceedings.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, the Department's stance, the Tribunal's judgment, and the final outcome in favor of the Assessee.

---