Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against
the order dated 28.01.2014 of the Commissioner of Income Tax
[hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)]-Patiala agitating the levy of
penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
We have heard the rival submissions and have also gone
through the records. We find that the Assessing officer in this case
has levied penalty in respect of ¼ of the expenses claimed as
commission payment by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the
assessee has taken us through the assessment records whereby he has shown that in fact the assessee has agreed to 1/4th of the aforesaid
disallowance on notional basis, however, it is a fact which comes out
ITA No.288/Chd/2014- Shiv Kumar & Sons (HUF),Chandigarh 2
from the file that Assessing officer did not find that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or has concealed its income. It is also a fact on the file that the assessee had deducted TDS and deposited it in the government treasury on the entire payment. It is settled law that each and every disallowance made by the Assessing officer does not ipso facto attract penalty provisions. The disallowance of commission has been made by the Assessing officer on estimation basis.
In view of this, we do not find any justification on the part of the lower authorities so far as the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, therefore, the penalty levied by the lower authorities ordered to be deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court.
Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.R.KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 06.04.2018 Rkk Copy to: • The Appellant • The Respondent • The CIT • The CIT(A) • The DR