M/S. FRONTIER BUSINESS SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1568/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 June 2020AY 2015-165 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that penalties for statutory disallowances due to non-deduction of TDS are not leviable as per the Reliance Petro Products Ltd. judgment. It also found that the CSR expense disallowance was due to a bonafide and inadvertent omission by the assessee, thus not attracting penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenged a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, confirmed by the CIT(A). The penalty was based on disallowances made for CSR expenses and non-deduction of tax at source on software purchases and payments to non-residents.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable for statutory disallowances due to non-deduction of TDS and for inadvertent omissions in claiming expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 40(a)(i),Section 40(a)(iii),Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘C’

For Respondent: Smt. R.Premi,JCIT

O R D E R

PER B.R.BASKARAN, AM:

1.

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 30- 04-2019 passed by ld.CIT(A)-3, Bangalore confirming the penalty of Rs.2.00 lakhs levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though the case was adjourned on the last occasion at the request of the assessee. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appal ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.

ITA Nos.2027 & 2028(B)/2018 2

3.

We heard the ld. DR and perused the record. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading and undertaking IT infrastructure related items and also provide services. The assessment in the hands of the assessee was completed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 by making the following additions Sl.No Particulars Amount 1 CSR expenses disallowed 1,38,000/- 2 U/s 40(a)(i) tax not deducted on purchase of software 1,71,980/- 3 U/s 40(a)(iii) as tax not deducted on payment of salary to 2,90,140/- a non-resident The AO levied penalty of Rs.2.00 lakhs on the above said disallowances u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, holding that the assessee has furnished “inaccurate particulars of income”. The ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the same and hence, the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

4.

We shall first take up the issue of penalty levied on the disallowances made by the AO u/s 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the disallowances made u/s 40(a|)(i) and 40(a)(iii) are statutory disallowances which are required to be made for non-deduction of tax at source as per the provisions of the Income tax Act. It is not the case of the revenue that the expenses, which were disallowed due to statutory provisions, were either bogus or non-genuine, i.e., but for the statutory provisions, the said expenses are allowable under the Act. It is also a fact that the assessee has disclosed the details relating to the relevant expenses. Hence, the question of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income with regard to these disallowances does not arise, as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Ltd. 322 ITR 158, in which it was held that mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

ITA Nos.2027 & 2028(B)/2018 3 5. In the instant case, assessee has claimed expenditure which is otherwise allowable, but for the statutory provisions of sec.40(a)(i) &(iii) of the IT Act, 1961. Hence, such statutory disallowance will not fall under the category of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not sustainable on such kind of disallowances. We notice that the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has also considered an identical issue in the case of Tanushree Basu Vs ACIT (ITA No.2922/Mum/2012) dated 25-05-2013 and it was decided in favour of the assessee as under:- “6. We have considered submissions of ld representatives of parties and perused orders of authorities below. It is a fact that assessee has claimed expenses aggregating to Rs.16,17,766/- and same were disallowed by the AO while completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on the ground that assessee failed to deduct TDS. We observe that the genuineness of the claim of the assessee has not been disputed by the department. Therefore, it cannot be said that assessee has claimed expenses which are false or not genuine. Assessee has furnished all the relevant facts concerning the claim made by it in the return filed. AO has levied penalty in respect of said amount merely because said claim of the assessee was disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act as assessee failed to deduct TDS thereon. The Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd (supra) has held that a mere making of the claim which is not sustainable in the law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case, admittedly, assessee made a claim but the same was rejected and disallowed not for the reason that the claim was not genuine or was fabricated but in view of provisions of law that & 2028(B)/2018 4 assessee did not deduct TDS thereon. We are of the considered that view that the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case before us and, therefore, levy of penalty is not justified. We also observe that similar issue has also been considered by ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Mazda Ltd (supra), wherein, levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was cancelled which was levied on account of dis allowance of claim for deduction of royalty and technical know how as per section 40(a)(ia) of the Act., as the assessee failed to deduct TDS on above payments. The ratio of the said case also applies squarely to the case before us.

7.

In view of above, we hold that levy of penalty, in the facts and circumstances o f the case, is not in accordance with law and same is deleted by allowing ground o appeal taken by assessee.” Accordingly, we hold penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable on the disallowances made u/s 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961. 6. The next disallowance, on which penalty was levied, is disallowance of CSR expenses amounting to Rs.1,38,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee has incurred CSR expenses and the same was not disallowed by the assessee, as per requirement of Explanation-2 to sec.37 of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed the same and also levied a penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act rejecting the contention of the assessee and the said disallowance was not voluntarily due to oversight. The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the penalty levied on the said disallowance.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →