Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2009-10 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-49/IT-54/2015-16 dated 22/03/2017 qua part confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. Explaining the same, Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Ms. Manshi Padihar submitted that penalty for Rs.2,88,393/- was levied by Ld. AO on 30/03/2015 against 14A disallowance of Rs.9,33,311/- made in an assessment u/s143(3) on 31/10/2011. The quantum of disallowance was agitated before this Tribunal vide order dated 15/02/2017 wherein the matter of disallowance was set aside to Ld. AO to recompute the same after excluding strategic investments made by the assessee. Pursuant to the said directions, an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 was passed by Ld. AO on 23/06/2017 wherein the disallowance has been recomputed at Rs.14,957/-.
Subsequently, the matter of penalty as levied by Ld. AO was considered by the Ld. first appellate authority vide impugned order dated 22/03/2017 wherein a direction was issued to Ld. AO to recompute the penalty on revised disallowance. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty to that extent, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that confirmation of penalty even to that extent was not justified since the primary ingredients of Section 271(1)(c) would not be fulfilled so as to attract the said penalty. The Ld. DR submitted that penalty to the extent of quantum sustained by Tribunal would be confirmed.
Upon careful consideration, we agree with the submissions of Ld. AR that the factual matrix would not warrant penalty since there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income on the part of the assessee rather a disallowance u/s 14A was made in the hands of the assessee, which was on estimated basis. Therefore, we hold that the penalty to the extent as directed by Ld. first appellate authority would not be sustainable.
The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03/05/2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (C.N. Prasad) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 03/05/2019 Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6.