2020 (4) TMI 655

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on facts and circumstance of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in sustaining penalty of Rs. 2,85,660/-. 2. That on facts and circumstance of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in sustaining penalty, inspite of, assessment order as passed by the learned AO being non speaking order with regard to disallowance of expenses, for which penalty has been imposed on the appellant. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute, modify the above ground of appeal, if necessary on the basis of submissions to b made at the time of personal hearing." ITA No.11/SRT/2017 for A.Y.2010-11: 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed brokerage income in his Return of Income....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tted that the ld.AO in his assessment order, apart from treating the brokerage income as 'unexplained cash credit' neither discussed expenses claimed by the assessee, nor justified those to be incurred for the purpose of earning said income. Thus, resulting imposition of penalty on account passive disallowance of expenses, without offering any explanation or justification for the same. The ld.AR relied upon the statement of facts submitted before us and also drawn our attention to para no.7 of the statement of facts wherein the assessee placed reliance on the judicial pronouncements which reproduced below: "The word 'particulars' must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that, by itself, would not attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If the contention of the revenue was accepted, then in case of every return where the claim made was not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee would invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature Mens Rea Not Necessary For Imposing Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)" 7. On the other hand, the ld.Departmental Representative(DR) relied upon the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. 8. We have heard both the Counsels and perused the material placed on records, judgments cit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to disallow those expenses, thus in our view, penalty on the said reason is not imposable. Moreover, we find support from the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Kulwant Singh [2019] 104 taxmann.com 340 (Chandigarh Tribunal) wherein it has categorically been held that when all the facts with regard to the income were declared in the original return itself, then it cannot be taken as a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 10. Even otherwise, where the satisfaction of the ld.AO while initiating the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) with regard to filing of inaccurate particulars of income while making claim of brokerage charges and it was not believed by the ld.AO and the ld.....