No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI O.P. MEENA
आदेश /O R D E R
PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMEBR. These appeals are filed by the different assessees of
Kalani group are directed against the separate orders of ld.
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Indore [hereinafter
referred to as the CIT(A)] dated 15.01.2015 and 21.01.2015
respectively and pertain to assessment year 2009-10,
The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal :-
I.T.A.No. 420/Ind/2015: (Shri Saurabh Kalani):
That the ld. CIT(A) erred in levying the penalty of Rs. 2,834/- u/s 271AAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, during the appeal proceedings on the addition made u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During the assessment proceedings.
That the ld. CIT(A) erred in levying the penalty without providing any opportunity to the assessee and as such penalty levied is against the natural law of justice.
That the ld. CIT(A) levied the penalty suo motu and without appreciating that no penalty proceedings
I.T.A.Nos. 420 & 421/Ind/2015 Shri Saurabh Kalani and Shri Manish Kalani – A.Y.20-09-10 Page 3 of 13
were initiated by the ld. AO on the addition made during the assessment proceedings.
That the addition was made during the assessment proceedings due to difference of opinion on disallowance u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act and as such does not attract penalty which the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate.
I.T.A.No. 421/Ind/2015: (Shri Manish Kalani):
That the ld. CIT(A) erred in levying the penalty of Rs. 16,548/- u/s 271AAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, during the appeal proceedings on the addition made u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During the assessment proceedings.
2.That the ld. CIT(A) erred in levying the penalty without providing any opportunity to the assessee and as such penalty levied is against the natural law of justice.
3.That the ld. CIT(A) levied the penalty suo motu and without appreciating that no penalty proceedings were initiated by the ld. AO on the addition made during the assessment proceedings.
4.That the addition was made during the assessment proceedings due to difference of opinion on disallowance u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act and as such does not attract penalty which the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Shri
Saurabh Kalani is an individual filed the return of income on
I.T.A.Nos. 420 & 421/Ind/2015 Shri Saurabh Kalani and Shri Manish Kalani – A.Y.20-09-10 Page 4 of 13
06.12.2010 in response to proceedings initiated under section
153A of the Income Tax Act vide notice under section 153A
dated 22.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs.56,11,170/-.
The search proceedings under section 132 of the Income Tax
Act were carried at the assessee’s premises on 16.04.2009 and
accordingly proceedings under section 153A of the Income Tax
Act were initiated. The case of the assessee was selected for
scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the
Income Tax Act were issued. The assessee furnished the
required information from time to time and the assessment
was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income
Tax Act at the total income of Rs.56,39,515/- after making the
disallowance/addition to the returned income. The penalty
proceedings under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act were
initiated on the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- surrendered during
the course of search proceedings by the assessee. The
Assessing Officer passed penalty order levying penalty of
Rs.5,00,000/- under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act on
I.T.A.Nos. 420 & 421/Ind/2015 Shri Saurabh Kalani and Shri Manish Kalani – A.Y.20-09-10 Page 5 of 13
the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- surrendered during the course
of search.
That aggrieved by the penalty order assessee filed an
appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeal)-I, Indore.
That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals)-I, Indore during the appeal proceedings accepted the
submission given by the assessee and deleted penalty levied of
Rs.5,00,000/- under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act by
the Assessing Officer but erred in levying penalty of Rs.2834/-
under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act on disallowance
made of Rs.28345/- under section 14A of Income Tax Act.
Similarly, in the case of Shri Manish Kalani, who is
also an individual and filed the return of income on
06.12.2010 in response to proceedings initiated under section
153A of the Income Tax Act vide notice under section 153A
dated 22.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs.1,20,69,610/-.
The search proceedings under section 132 of the Income Tax
Act were carried at the assessee’s premises on 16.04.2009 and
I.T.A.Nos. 420 & 421/Ind/2015 Shri Saurabh Kalani and Shri Manish Kalani – A.Y.20-09-10 Page 6 of 13
accordingly proceedings under section 153A of the Income Tax
Act were initiated. The case of the assessee was selected for
scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the
Income Tax Act were issued. The assessee furnished the
required information from time to time and the assessment
was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income
Tax Act at the total income of Rs.1,22,35,098/- after making
following disallowance/addition. The penalty proceedings
under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act were initiated on
the amount of Rs.75,00,000/- surrendered during the course
of search proceedings by the assessee. The AO passed penalty
order levying penalty of Rs.7,50,000/- under section 271AAA
of the Income Tax Act on the amount of Rs.75,00,000/-
surrendered during the course of search.
Aggrieved by the penalty orders, assessee filed an
appeal before the ld. CIT(A) -I, Indore.
The ld. CIT(A)-I, Indore during the appeal proceedings
accepted the submission given by the assessee and deleted
penalty levied of Rs.7,50,000/- under section 271AAA of the
I.T.A.Nos. 420 & 421/Ind/2015 Shri Saurabh Kalani and Shri Manish Kalani – A.Y.20-09-10 Page 7 of 13
Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer, but erred in levying
penalty of Rs.16,548/- under section 271AAA of the Income
Tax Act on disallowance made of Rs.1,65,488/- under section
14A of Income Tax Act.
Both the assessee are in appeals before us against the
order of the ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that
penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act were initiated on
the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs. 75 lakhs surrendered
during the course of search proceedings by the assessees on
which penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 7.50 lakhs was levied.
The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has
deleted the penalty levied of Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 7.50 lakhs
u/s 271AAA of the Act, but erred in levying the penalty of Rs.
2834/- and Rs. 16,548/- u/s 271AAA of the Act on the
disallowances of Rs. 28,345/- and Rs. 1,65,488/- made u/s
14A of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended
that the provisions of Section 251(1) of the Act talks of the
powers of CIT(A) to vary the quantum of penalty levied which
I.T.A.Nos. 420 & 421/Ind/2015 Shri Saurabh Kalani and Shri Manish Kalani – A.Y.20-09-10 Page 8 of 13
has already been levied. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has no power
to initiate and impose the penalty u/s 271(1)(c), where the AO
did not initiate or did not levy any penalty for concealment of
income, even the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with the
powers of the AO, but he has no power to levy penalty. As
such penalty levied on the disallowance u/s 14A by the ld.
CIT(A) is unlawful and needs to be deleted. The Ld. Counsel
for the assessee also placed reliance in support of his
proposition in the case of Ajit Ramchandra Jadhav vs. Asstt.
Commissioner of Income Tax, I.T.A.No. 2104/PN/2013,
wherein the CIT(A) imposed the penalty on additional income
offered by the assessee in the return of income in pursuance of
certain action on which the AO has not levied the penalty, was
deleted by the Tribunal. Without prejudice to above, the Ld.
Counsel for the assessee further submitted that case law
relied by the ld. CIT(A) are not applicable because it is for
surrender and not for disallowance u/s 14A. Further, the ld.
CIT(A) levied the penalty suo motu and without appreciating
that no penalty proceedings will be initiated on the
I.T.A.Nos. 420 & 421/Ind/2015 Shri Saurabh Kalani and Shri Manish Kalani – A.Y.20-09-10 Page 9 of 13
disallowance u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld.
Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the expenses
claimed by the assessee were genuine expenses incurred for
the business purpose and there was no contrary observation
by the AO. Lastly disallowances made u/s 14A of the Act are
on account of legal provision on which facts and figures were
correctly disclosed in the returns of income. Therefore, this
does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of
income. Further, the AO himself has not initiated penalty on
the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act nor levied any penalty on
this account. In support of his contention, the Ld. Counsel for
the assessee relied on the decision in the case of ACIT, Circle
36(1) vs. Global Associates, I.T.A.No. 4819/Del/2012 dated
28th June, 2013, wherein penalty levied on account of
disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) and u/s 14A was deleted by
following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Private Limited, 322 ITR 158
(S.C.) and Price Water Coopers Private Limited vs. CIT, 348
ITR 306 ( S.C.). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further cited
I.T.A.Nos. 420 & 421/Ind/2015 Shri Saurabh Kalani and Shri Manish Kalani – A.Y.20-09-10 Page 10 of 13
decision of Tribunal in the case of ACIT, Circle 301 vs. Manish
Jain, I.T.A.No. 5999/Del/12 dated 14.6.2013, wherein penalty
levied u/s 271(1)(c) on account of disallowance made u/s 14A
read with Rule 8D was deleted. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel
for the assessee argued that the disallowances u/s 14A is
mere technical and legal and no penalty is leviable in both the
assessment years on account of decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products (supra).
On the other hand, the ld. Departmental
Representative relied on the order of the CIT(A).
We have considered the facts, rival submissions and
perused the material available on record. We find that the AO
has initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) on account of
income of Rs. 11 lakhs disclosed in the returns of income filed
in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act. The returns of
income are so filed were as such accepted except by making
disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. However, the AO levied the
penalty on the amount disclosed during the course of search,
which was came to be deleted by the ld. CIT(A). However,
I.T.A.Nos. 420 & 421/Ind/2015 Shri Saurabh Kalani and Shri Manish Kalani – A.Y.20-09-10 Page 11 of 13
during the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the
penalty in both the assessment years on account of
surrendered income, but the ld. CIT(A) has levied a penalty on
account of disallowances u/s 14A of the Act. We find that the
disallowances u/s 14A have been made on the basis of facts
disclosed in the returns of income and the same are being
legal in nature nor on which the AO has initiated the penalty
proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty on
such disallowances. Therefore, we are of the considered
opinion that disallowances are made on account of legal
provision as enumerated in Rule 8D read with Section 14A of
the Act, which has been made on the facts disclosed in the
returns of income. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271AAA of the
Act in both the assessment years are not sustainable on such
legal disallowances in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products P.Limited,
(2010) 322 ITR 158 ( S.C.), wherein it was held that where
there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in
its returns of income are found to be incorrect or erroneous or
I.T.A.Nos. 420 & 421/Ind/2015 Shri Saurabh Kalani and Shri Manish Kalani – A.Y.20-09-10 Page 12 of 13
false, there is no question of inviting penalty u/s 271AAA of
the Act. A mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in
law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate
particulars regarding income of the assessee. Such a claim
made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate
particulars. This view is also supported by the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water Cooper
Private Limited vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 ( S.C.). Therefore, we are
of the view that the assessee has offered an explanation, which
is found to be bona fide and substantiated by the facts relating
to the same as disclosed in the returns of income. Therefore,
the penalty levied by the CIT(A) in both the assessment years
under appeal on account of disallowances of expenses u/s 14A
read with Rule 8D is not sustainable in law. This view is also
supported by the decision in the case of ACIT, Circle 36(1) vs.
Global Associates (I.T.A.No. 4819/Del/2012 dated 28.06.2013
(Trib-Delhi) and ACIT, Circle 30(1) vs. Manish Jain ( I.T.A.No.
5999/Del/2012 dated 14.06.2013 (Trib-Del). Hence, the
penalty levied by the CIT(A) is cancelled. Accordingly, ground
I.T.A.Nos. 420 & 421/Ind/2015 Shri Saurabh Kalani and Shri Manish Kalani – A.Y.20-09-10 Page 13 of 13
nos. 1 to 5 for both the assessment years are allowed. Hence, the same are cancelled. 13. In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in both the assessment years are allowed. 14. In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed.
The order has been pronounced in open court on the 13th January. 2017.
Sd/- Sd/- (डी.ट�.गरा�सया) (ओ.पी.मीना) �या�यक सद�य लेखा सद�य (D.T.GARASIA) (O.P.MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
�दनांक /Dated : 13th January, 2017.
CPU*