TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als)-53, Mumbai, ["learned CIT(A)"], which in turn arose from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The only grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of energy generation through a thermal power plant. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 28/09/2012, declaring a total income of INR 6,10,772. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and an order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 18/03/2015, accepting the returned income. Subsequently, proceedings under section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer ("AO"), vide order dated 30/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, disallowed the said interest expenditure under section 57(iii) of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. In the meanwhile, the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated only on the addition made under section 57 of the Act, and vide order dated 21/03/2023 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act a penalty of INR 5,66,184 was levied on the assessee on the basis that the assessee has wilfully evaded tax by furnishing inaccurate particulars/concealing its income. 5. In further proceedings before the learned CIT(A), despite multiple opportunities being granted to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order, it is seen that the AO has disallowed interest expenses of Rs. 18,32,316/- claimed by the assessee u/s 57(1) of the IT Act. Further, the CIT(A) has dismissed the quantum appeal filed by the appeal. Relevant portion of order of the CIT(A) is reproduced as under: "On going through the decisions relied upon by the appellant, it is seen the facts of the case of the appellant are different. In the case of the appellant, the appellant has offered the interest income as income from other sources. The interest paid on borrowed fund to the extent of 75% of the interest income has been taken as deduction u/s 57 of the Act. The appellant itself has treated interest income from FD as income other sources, its character cannot be changed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Apart from the above, it is evident from the record that the AO merely, on the basis of material available on record, denied the claim of interest expenditure made by the assessee under section 57 of the Act, rejecting the submission of the assessee that the interest expenditure incurred on borrowed funds have direct nexus with the interest income earned by the assessee. Thus, it is evident from the record that there was no allegation of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and instead, the entire addition itself is based on disagreement with the submissions of the assessee. We find that while examining the meaning of the term "particulars" in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme....