2023 (6) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), dated 28.06.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in penalty confirming the action of Assessing Officer in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by sustaining the penalty to the extent of Rs.1,56,587/- as against Rs.4,69,761/- imposed by Assessing Officer. 2. It is therefore prayed that penalty imposed by Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.1,56,587/- and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enalty of Rs.4,69,761/- being 300% of tax sought to be evaded was imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has restricted the penalty being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. That is, the penalty amount was restricted by ld CIT(A) to Rs.1,56,587/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, at the outset stated that Impex Fees was not penal in nature for violation of any law, it is a normal business expenditure, hence penalty should not be imposed. The ld Counsel also argued that sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 25.09.2009, wherein it was held as follows: "5. In the appeal by the department, the only issue is whether the amount of Rs.7,00,000 paid by the assessee to SMC (Surat Municipal Corporation) is allowable as a deduction in computing the profits of the business of the assessee. The amount was paid as 'premium fee' for covering the balconies and not as penalty. In the approved plan, the balconies were to be left uncovered. According to the assessee, deviation from the approved plan was allowed on payment of premium fee as per the circular issued by the Corporation. These arguments were rejected by the Assessing Officer, relying on the Explanation below sec.37(1) inserted retrospectively. The CIT(A) however held that the payment of t....