TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor did file any application seeking adjournment. The assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to hear Ld. DR and pass order on considering material evidence available on record. 3. We find the issues raised in these three appeals above are similar basing on the identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of the Ld. DR we proceed to hear the appeal together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Let us first take up the appeal in ITA No.1966/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2004-05. ITA No.1966/PUN/2017 A.Y.2004-05 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....71(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Before us, the assessee raised 4 grounds challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Ground No.1 raised for confirming penalty u/s.271(1)(c) on account of disallowance made u/s.40A(3) of the Act. 7. We note that there was no transaction regarding the addition made u/s.40A(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. But however, the contention was raised before the CIT(A) in the penalty proceedings that there was no dispute with respect to the genuineness of the expenses found in the diaries and could not be said that the expenses were false or non genuine. Further, it was contended that all the entries in the diaries had been verified by the Sp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings and the assessee accepted the same. 10. We find nothing on record showing that the assessee challenged the same before the Appellate Forum and therefore, taking into consideration the submissions of the Ld. DR, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in confirming the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance made u/s.69C of the Act. Therefore, we completely agree with the reasons recorded by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in his order. Thus, Ground No.2 raised in appeal by the assessee is dismissed. 11. Ground No.3 raised in question is with regard to the confirmation of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of disallowance made u/s.68 of the Act. 12. We note that the Assessing Officer in his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of deduction of TDS on the payment made on account of TDR/Land cost. It was contended by the assessee before the CIT(A) in penalty appellate proceedings, mere disallowance for failure to deduct TDS on payment does not attract penalty and penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law. 15. We note that the assessee placed reliance on various case laws including decision in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158. We note that the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for failure to deduct TDS which itself clearly shows that the there were details regarding the payment involving TDR/land cost in the assessment proceedings which does not any way constitute furnishing of inaccurate pa....