2021 (6) TMI 578

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order on the following grounds of appeal before us: "On the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law 1. The Ld CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) amounting Rs. 1,36,000/- without appreciating the fact that the appellant had neither furnished inaccurate particulars of his income nor concealed his income. 2. The Ld CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on deeming disallowance u/s 40 (a)(ia) of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,40,000/- only for lack of payment of TDS while the payment was bonafide. 3. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) failed to consider that mere addition or disallowance could not be the basis for concealment as all the parti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....company had e-filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 13.09.2013, declaring a loss of Rs. 6,76,592/- under the normal provisions of the Act and "book profit" under Sec. 115JB of Rs. 67,11,262/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such under Sec. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened under Sec. 147 of the Act. 3. Observing that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source on commission expenditure of Rs. 4,40,000/-, the A.O disallowed the said claim of deduction under Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. After inter alia making the aforesaid disallowance the loss of the assessee company was assessed by the A.O vide his order passed under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 22.12.2017 at (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n assessee under Sec. 40(a)(ia), the ld. A.R relied on the order of a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of, viz. Intercontinental Hotels Group India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi, ITA No. 2188/Del/2017, dated 27.03.2021. Apart from that, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the A.O had failed to strike off the irrelevant default in the body of the 'Show cause' notice, dated 26.12.2017, therefore, the penalty was liable to be vacated on the ground of invalid assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the A.O. 7. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the or....