TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 66
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment year 2012-13 on the grounds inter alia that:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has failed to observe the principal of natural justice and the impugned order of penalty is bad in law on the grounds that penalty based on an assessment order where AO never offered any opportunity of being heard on the subject matter of addition and conclusions drawn were arbitrary based on conjectures and assumptions and calculated on ad hoc basis. 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case, the penalty has been levied without appreciating the facts and documents pleaded on record during assessment as were called for from time to time and without making out or alleging....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....38,820/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by way of filing the appeal who has given part relief by deleting the penalty levied on the basis of addition of Rs. 6,58,710/- by partly allowing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned order contended inter alia that assessee has not furnished any ina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no tax was payable by the company. It is also not in dispute that during the first appellate proceedings, ld CIT (A) has given part relief by deleting the penalty qua disallowance/addition of Rs. 6,58,710/- on account of non-deduction of TDS. 8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the lower authorities and arguments addressed by the authorized representatives of both the parties, the sole question arises for determination in this case is:- "as to whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income during assessment proceedings?" 9. So far as penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) qua ad hoc disallowance/addition of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ispute that everything would depend upon the return filed by the assessee, because that is the only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. To attract penalty, the details supplied in the return must not be accurate, not exact or correct, not according to the truth or erroneous. Where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... because these are expenses which are necessary to carry out day-to-day business. 13. Moreover, it is a debatable issue if the expenditures are capital or revenue in nature as has been held by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) by returning following findings :- "Assessee received a sum as grant-in-aid from State Government and same was disclosed as capital receipt - Assessing Officer, however, treated receipt of grant-in-aid as revenue receipt and thereafter levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Whether since issue whether amount of grant-in-aid was capital receipt or a revenue receipt was a debatable issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not imposable - Held, y....