SHRIMATI HARWINDER KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 96/ASR/2021Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 October 2022AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of expenses is beyond jurisdiction, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Product P. Ltd. Therefore, the penalty amount is liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of interest on a loan, which was treated as a disallowance of expenses. The quantum appeal regarding the interest disallowance had been previously restored to the AO by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied for disallowance of expenses when no inaccurate particulars of income were furnished by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

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, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Respondent: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Hearing: 27.09.2022Pronounced: 12.10.2022

ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM:

The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, Ludhiana, [in brevity the CIT(A)] bearing appeal No.10092/CIT(A)-5/Ldh/2020-21, date of order 29.07.2021, the order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2008-09.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Dy.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jalandhar, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 271(1)(c)of the Act date of order 12.01.2021.

2.

The brief fact of the case is that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) & the demand was framed.The penalty was initiated and levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act related to disallowance of interest on loan amount. The quantum appeal of the assessee was heard before the Hon’ble ITAT bearing appeal date of order 29.10.2018 was restored the issue of interest on loan and sent back to the ld. AO. The disallowance of interest on loan was actually the disallowance of expenses which was claimed in the P & L account. The penalty order was challenged before the appellate authority. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the plea of the assessee and upheld the order of the ld. AO.

3.

Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

4.

During the appeal hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. The matter is taken up with the consent of the ld. Sr. DR for further adjudication.

5.

The assessee filed a paper book which is kept in the record.

5.1 The plea of the assessee was that the penalty was levied on the disallowance of expenses which is covered as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Product P. Ltd.’, 322 ITR 158(SC):

“Penalty under s. 271(l)(c)-Concealment-Disallowance of claim for deduction-In order to attract the provisions of s. 271(l)(c), there has to be concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of his income by the assessee-In the instant case, assessee claimed deduction of interest on loans taken by it for purchase of shares-AO disallowed such interest- Admittedly, no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate-Hence, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars-Making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars-Merely because the assessee claimed deduction which has not been accepted by the Revenue, penalty under s. 271(l)(c) is not attracted-lf the contention of the Revenue is accepted, the assessee would be liable for penalty under s. 271(l)(c) in every' case where the claim made by the assessee is not accepted by the AO for any reason-That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature.”

6.

The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities.

7. We heard the rival submissions and consider the documents available in the record. The disallowance of the interest was made u/s 143(3). The interest was debited in the P & L account under revenue expenditure. The issue was already settled by the Apex Court in the order mentioned above. After respectful consideration of the order of Apex court the framing of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act related disallowance of expenses is beyond jurisdiction. The penalty amount of Rs.27,796/- which was levied- by the ld. AO, is liable to be quashed.

7.

In the result, the appeal bearing isallowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.10.2022

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →