| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 2178 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Mere disallowance of sale promotion expenses claimed by assessee could not lead to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c), more specifically when AO had not even made himself satisfied at the time of making disallowance in assessment order and also when issuing notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) as to whether assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or had concealed particulars of income.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - Non-specification of particular charge in penalty notice -
AO disallowed sales promotion expenses claimed by assessee and levied penalty under section 271(1)(c). Assessee challenged penalty levied on the ground of AO not having mentioned particular charge of offence in penalty notice.Held: Mere disallowance of sale promotion expenses claimed by assessee could not lead to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c), more specifically when AO had not even made himself satisfied at the time of making disallowance in assessment order and also when issuing notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) as to whether assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or had concealed particulars of income.
Relied:CIT & Anr. v. M/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (2016) 242 Taxman 180 (SC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4242 (SC) and CIT & Ors. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory & Ors. (2014) 359 ITR 565 (Karn) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0202 (Karn-HC). Distinguished:Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 99 Taxmann.com 152 (SC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 6831 (SC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2009-10
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|