MANISHA VIJAY LADHANI, MUMBAI V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2367/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0348 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JOTHILAKSHMI NAYAK SR AR
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Revenue expenditure; TDS
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 27; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D, BENCH MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2367/MUM/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ) MANISHA VIJAY LADHANI 3, SILVER APTS. MAHANT ROAD VILE PARLE-E MUMBAI-400 057 VS. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1) AAYKAR BHAWAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 PAN/GIR NO. A BFPL8187R ( APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY SMT.JOTHILAKSHMI NAYAK, SR.AR (ADDL. CIT) ASSESSEE BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 10/12 /2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEME NT 10 /12 /201 9 / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA (A.M) : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST, THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)50, MUMBAI, DATED 28/02/2018 AND IT PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LEVY OF P ENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ON DISALLOWA NCES MADE IN ASSESSMENT ORDER ON EXPENSES NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 37 O F INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE PRAY TO ADD, ALTER OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUND ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 ON 26/02/2016 BY MAKING ADDITIONS TOWARDS DISALLOWANCES OF INTERE ST PAID ON LATE ITA NO.2367/MUM/2018 MANISHA VIJAY LADHANI 2 REMITTANCE OF TDS FOR RS.318/- AND DISALLOWANCES OF PENALTY PAID ON WORKS CONTRACT. THEREAFTER, THE LD. AO HAS INITIATE D PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 AND AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE LEVIED PENALT Y OF RS.18,318/-, WHICH IS 100% OF TAX OUGHT TO BE EVADED U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961, FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT (A), BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. THE LD.CIT(A), FOR DETAILED REASONS RECORD ED IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER HAS CONFIRMED PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LD.AO, ON THE GROUND THAT EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING SUCH A CLAIM IS NOT FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE AND ACCORDINGLY, EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 WOULD COME INTO PLAY AND THE ASSESSEE WILL BE LIABLE FOR PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY, C ONFIRMED PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT, AND DIS MISSED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ORDER, THE ASSESEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESEE. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FI ND THAT THE LD. AO HAS LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT , 1961, IN RESPECT OF TWO ADDITIONS I.E DISALLOWANCES OF INTEREST PAID ON LATE REMITTANCE OF TDS AND DISALLOWANCES OF INTEREST PAID ON WORKS CONTRACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HER INCOME, IN RESPECT OF ABOVE TWO ADDITIONS, WHICH WARRANTS PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 . IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT MERE MAKING A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED WOULD NOT AMOUNTS TO FUR NISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE, FUR THER CONTENDED THAT IT HAS FILED NECESSARY DETAILS, IN RESPECT OF ALL THOSE ITEMS AND ITA NO.2367/MUM/2018 MANISHA VIJAY LADHANI 3 CLAIMED DEDUCTIONS ON THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT INTE REST PAID ON LATE REMITTANCE OF TDS AND INTEREST PAID ON WORKS CONTRA CTS IS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE, WHICH COULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION, W HILE COMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. 5. HAVING CONSIDERED ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DR AND AL SO MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT WHEN A CLAIM IS MADE REGARDING CERTAIN EXPENSES, BUT SUCH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AO WOULD NOT BE A GROUND FOR LEVYING CONCEALMEN T PENALTY FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. FUR THER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SAID EXPENDITURE IS DEDUCTABLE IS ALTHOUGH, REJECTED BY THE LD. AO, BUT HE DID NOT FIND ANY DEL EIBERATE ATTEMPT OF THE ASSESSEE TO EVADE PAYMENT TAX BY CLAIMING SAI D DEDUCTION. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED ABOVE TWO EXPENSES ONLY ON TH E GROUND THAT SAID EXPENDITURE IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. BUT , OTHERWISE THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO FURNISHING NECESSARY DETAILS, IN RESPECT OF THOSE EXPENDITURE IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE LD. AO EVEN DURI NG ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VI EW THAT MAKING A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED IS NOT A GROUND F OR LEVYING CONCEALMENT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1 961 AND HENCE, WE DIRECT THE LD.AO TO DELETE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 27 1(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 /12/ 2019 ITA NO.2367/MUM/2018 MANISHA VIJAY LADHANI 4 SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) SD/- (G. MANJUNATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 10/12/2019 THIRUMALESH SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//