DR ANITA MOHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CC-1(1), MUMBAI

सुनवाई क� तार�ख/ : 17/12/2019 Date of Hearing घोषणा क� तार�ख / : 17/12/2019 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member): - 1. In the aforesaid appeal for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, the assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of penalty of Rs.1.20 Lacs u/s 271(1)(c) by Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [in Dr. Anita Mohan Assessment Year-2012-13 short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] vide Appeal No. CIT(A)-47/191/2015-16 order dated 22/05/2018.

Dr. Anita Mohan Assessment Year-2012-13 4. Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) and the assessee was saddled with impugned penalty of Rs.1.20 Lacs vide penalty order dated 24/06/2015. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted that the expenditure which was disallowed had direct relation with professional receipts. Nevertheless, there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose correct particulars of income and therefore, the assessee opposed the levy of penalty by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in CIT V/s Reliance Petroproducts Private Ltd. (322 ITR 158). However, not convinced with assessee’s arguments, Ld. AO imposed impugned penalty of Rs.1.20 Lacs for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

Dr. Anita Mohan Assessment Year-2012-13 professional receipts of Rs.17.36 Lacs and claimed expenditure of Rs.6.54 Lacs which would work out to be approx. 38% of professional receipts. The Ld. AO has made partial disallowance to the extent of Rs.3.52 Lacs only but accepted the balance expenditure as claimed by the assessee. The aforesaid action on the part of Ld. AO would establish that the assessee was certainly required to incur expenses during the course of her profession. As per assessee’s submissions, the assessee was required to incur certain costs like travelling expenses and employ an assistant in the hospital for maintaining diaries besides food costs for the staff in case of late sittings. Keeping in view assessee’s profession, we are convinced with these arguments. Therefore, the mere fact that the assessee accepted disallowance of certain expenditure would not justify the levy of penalty merely on the ground that the assessee was not running an independent clinic but working as consulting doctor to a hospital. It is pertinent to note that receipts were in the nature of professional income which is evident from the fact that receipts were subjected to TDS u/s 194J. Further, these receipts were also accepted to be assessable under the head Profit & gains of business / profession. The assessee was certainly required to incur expenditure during the course of her profession and therefore, mere acceptance of certain disallowance, in our considered opinion, would not make assessee liable for impugned penalty, keeping in view her background. It is trite law that the imposition of penalty is not automatic and every addition would not necessarily result into imposition of penalty. Therefore, the facts and circumstances do not convince us to confirm the