ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. M/S RANA ENTERPRISES, MUZAFFARNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6154/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 November 2017AY 2010-114 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance under Section 40A(3) does not automatically equate to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, which are prerequisites for penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made a disallowance under Section 40A(3) for payments made in violation of the Act. Subsequently, a penalty was imposed under Section 271(1)(c) based on this disallowance. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether a disallowance under Section 40A(3) is sufficient grounds for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) without proving concealment or inaccurate particulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(3),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SMT BEENA PILLAI

For Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.11.2017Pronounced: 16.11.2017

ITO, Vs. Rana Enterprises, Khatauli, Kandhla Road, Muzaffarnagar. Budhana, Muzaffarnagar. PAN: AAKPR0269C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 16.11.2017 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 14.08.2015 confirming the penalty of Rs.14 lac imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The facts leading to the imposition of penalty are that the assessee made certain purchases for which payments were made in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made disallowance under the respective provision and, thereafter, imposed penalty in respect of such disallowance. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty by relying on an order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Saurabh Garg.

The Revenue is aggrieved against the deletion of penalty.

3.

We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the necessary record.

There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. As such, we are proceeding to dispose off the appeal ex parte qua the assessee. Penalty in this case was imposed with reference to the disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act.

4.

It is seen that the only basis for imposition of penalty by the Assessing Officer is disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act. Mere disallowance of an expenditure u/s 40A(3) cannot be equated with concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income warranting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

5.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) has held that simply for the reason that the Assessing Officer did not find the claim of the assessee to be sustainable in law up to a certain extent, cannot be a case for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), more so, when the particulars furnished by the assessee were not inaccurate. Ratio decidendi of the judgment is fully applicable to the instant case as well. In view of the foregoing discussion, we uphold the impugned order deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), in our considered opinion, rightly relied on the Tribunal order passed in the case of Saurabh Garg for deleting the penalty. We, therefore, uphold the same and approve the deletion of penalty.

6.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

The decision was pronounced in the open court on 16th

November, 2017.

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →