Case Law Details
Galaxy Construction and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune)
The issue in the present appeal relates to levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer in respect of addition made under the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had not agitated the additions in the appellate proceedings. It is clearly settled position of law that when an assessee not agitated the addition in the appellate proceedings does not amount to either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We have carefully gone through the assessment order and find that the addition u/s 36(1)(iii) was made by the Assessing Officer because the appellant had failed to demonstrate the advances to sister concern were made for the business purpose. A mere making claim which is not sustainable by law itself will not amount to furnish inaccurate particulars of income as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC).
ITAT held that the appellant cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of 34,50,500/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)- 1, Pune [‘the CIT(A) ’] dated 11.07.2019 for the assessment year 2014-15 confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.34,50,500/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
