TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Earlier the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for non prosecution by the Tribunal vide order dated 11.06.2018 and the same was recalled thereafter vide order dated 03.01.2020 passed in MA No.190/Chd/2018. Hence, the present appeal before us. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: "1. The Ld. Assessing Officer's and Worthy CIT (A)'s orders are contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer's and Worthy CIT (A)'s he Ld. AO grossly erred in imposing penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 on the addition of Rs. 4,79,9867- by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty does not warrant invocation of any penalty as it does not amount to inaccurate particulars. The amount was compensatory in nature and not for any infringement of law. The same was agreed addition subject to no penalty. 6. The Ld. AO and Worthy CIT (A) grossly erred in imposing penalty u/s271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the addition of Rs. 21,852/- on account of interest on refund not disclosed. The same was due to an oversight/bonafide mistake and was offered for taxation immediately without any delay. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to or amend the aforesaid grounds before disposal of the appeal." 3. It transpires from the grounds raised above that the assessee is agitating levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld not have resulted in any tax effect. A number of case laws were relied upon in support of his contention, more particularly the following: i) CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 for the proposition that all particulars having been duly disclosed a mere discussion would not attract levy of penalty; ii) CIT Vs National Institute of Technical Teacher Training & Research (2014) 50 Taxman.com 107 (P&H) for the proposition that particulars of income having been furnished, disallowance having been made of a specific provision of the Act i.e. section 43B of the Act disallowing the amount remaining unpaid by specific due date would not attract penalty; iii) Pr.CIT Vs. Torque Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 81 Taxman.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... particulars have been concealed. 7. Having said so, this section has been the subject to interpretation by higher Judicial Forums repeatedly and the basic proposition laid down with regard to the same, as pointed out by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee, is that if all particulars of income are disclosed the mere disallowance of claim or non acceptance of claim of the assessee would not attract levy of penalty as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) at. In the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held a bonafide mistake on the part of the assessee to not attract levy of penalty where all particulars of income are disclosed but the assessee fai....