TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter referred to as "the Act") dt.29/12/2014 relevant to the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1.1 The order passed u/s.250 on 18.05.2018 for A.Y.2012-13 by CIT(A)-1,Abad upholding the penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,49,068/- in respect of disallowance of expenses is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant. 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,49,068/-by AO. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as income under the deeming provisions. Therefore, there cannot be any penalty on the disallowance of the claim made by the assessee. However, the AO was of the view that the expenses claimed by the assessee are not allowable by the operations of the provisions of the Act. Had there not been any scrutiny assessment, the assessee would have been allowed the expenses as discussed above which would have resulted the under assessment of income. Accordingly, the AO levied the penalty for Rs. 1,49,068/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: 2.4. On careful consideration of entire facts, it is seen that dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n by him has not been found to be incorrect, he will not be liable to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c), even if claim made by him is unsustainable in law, provided that he either substantiates explanation offered by him or explanation, even if not substantiated, is found to be bona fide- Held, yes - Whether if assesses makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law, but is also wholly without any basis and explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, Explanation 1 to section 271(1}(c) would come into play and assessee will be .liable to penalty- Held, yes" The Hon'ble Delhi Court in above case has also considered the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; herein above, it is held that the claim made-by the assessee is not bona fide. The claim besides being incorrect in law is mala fide, and Explanation 1 to section 271(1}(o) would come into play and work to the disadvantage of the assessee. Even in the present case Appellant has failed to establish its claim of Rs. 4,82,421/- which was not added back to the total income. In view of the above discussion and judicial ratios (supra). Assessing Officer was justified in levying penalty of Rs. 1,49,068/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars. Hence, the penalty levied of Rs. 1,49,068/- for the default is confirmed. The ground of appeal with sub grounds is dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order of the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eport only. The AO has not carried out any investigation for detecting the claim of the assessee towards the provision for gratuity which was not allowable as deduction. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT reported in 25 taxmann.com 400 wherein, it was held as under: "The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It appears that all that has happened in the present case is that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of income by claiming the deduction on account of exhibition expenses which was disallowed on account of nondeduction of TDS under section 195 of the Act. In this connection, we note that the term inaccurate particular has not been defined under the Act. However various court including the Hon'ble Apex court defined the term as the details of claim made are not accurate, not according to the truth, not exact or erroneous. In this regard we find support and guidance from the order of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under: "it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c ) exist before the penalty is imposed. There....