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>Court rules penalty unjustified for change in accounting policy, not concealment or inaccuracy.</h1> <h3>The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central -3 Versus Taneja Developers And Infrastructuere Ltd.</h3> The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central -3 Versus Taneja Developers And Infrastructuere Ltd. - [2021] 435 ITR 122 (Del) Issues:1. Disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee in the fresh return filed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act.2. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the assessing officer.3. Appeal against the penalty order by the assessee.4. Tribunal's decision on the penalty imposition.Issue 1: Disallowance of Expenses Claimed by the Assessee:The case involved the disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee in the fresh return filed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer disallowed the expenses as they were not claimed in the original return filed by the assessee under Section 139 of the Act. The CIT (A) upheld the disallowance, leading to penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty:The assessing officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,43,47,750 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act due to the disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee. The penalty was based on the contention that the claim of the assessee was not acceptable under the accounting principles and method of accounting followed.Issue 3: Appeal Against Penalty Order:The assessee appealed against the penalty order dated 28.03.2013. The CIT (A) set aside the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, leading to the revenue's appeal to the Tribunal challenging the CIT (A)'s decision.Issue 4: Tribunal's Decision on Penalty Imposition:The Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to set aside the penalty. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's claim was based on accounting principles and a change in the method of accounting, which did not warrant penalty imposition under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere rejection of a claim, found untenable, does not lead to a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the penalty imposition was not justified as the assessee's claim was based on a change in accounting policy and the new claim made in the fresh return was not a case of concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Court referenced relevant case laws to support its decision and highlighted that penalty proceedings are not warranted when basic facts are disclosed or when a new claim is made due to a change in accounting policy.
TaxTMI 