2019 (3) TMI 1293

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of penalty of Rs. 3,27,468/- u/s. 271(c) of the act. 3. The fact in brief is that during the assessment made u/s. 143(3) of the act the assessing officer has made disallowance of following amounts:- (i) capitalization of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) Rs. 9,22,418 (ii) Addition on account of income Rs. 1,07,359 Regarding capitalization of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii), the assessee was asked to furnish the detail of loan amount, purchase of assets and working of interest till the date of putting of use of assets. In response the assessee has explained that no portion of interest was capitalized in respect of machineries as there was no time difference requiring the same as to acquisition and put to use. In this connection, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....explain why the penalty on the aforesaid addition should not be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act. The assessee has explained that there was only disallowance/addition but noting has been proved to show concealment of income which was envisaged u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act. The assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products 322 ITR 158 (2010). The assessing officer was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and held that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and also failed to substantiate reasonable and satisfactory explanation therefore the assessing officer had levied penalty of Rs. 527468/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act. 4. Aggrieved as....