TOSHNIWAL INDUSTREIS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 555/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 November 2016AY 2006-073 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 the penalty was not leviable as the claim was made under a bonafide belief and was a result of unintentional procedural irregularities, not concealment of income.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 35(2AB) but failed to provide a required agreement with the prescribed authority. Although recognized as an R&D unit, the AO disallowed the claim. The assessee offered to withdraw the deduction upon realizing the procedural lapse.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied for a claim that was disallowed due to procedural lapses, even if made bonafidely.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35(2AB),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI C.N. PRASAD

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar
For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Yadav, DR
Hearing: 07.11.2016Pronounced: 18.11.2016

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 07.11.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee on 21.1.2013 is against the order of the CIT (A)-7, Mumbai dated 12.10.2012 for the assessment year 2006-07. In this appeal assessee raised the following grounds which read as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in sustaining penalty of Rs. 1,59,795/- levied u/s 271(1)(c), without appreciating that mere making of a claim which was disallowed does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or to concealment of income. The Ld CIT (A) failed to appreciate that all the primary facts were disclosed by the appellant and there was no concealment at all in law merely because the claim was incorrectly made.

2. The order of the CIT (A) is against the weight of evidence, equity and natural justice.”

2. The only issues raised in the above grounds relates to the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,59,795/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal, CIT (A) confirmed the said penalty.

3. Before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee briefly submitted that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the manufacturing of scientific, industrial process and temperature measurement / control instruments. In the return of income for year under consideration, assessee claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act.

More judgments on Section 35(2AB)

All 842 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35(2AB) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →