TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules correction of status disclosure in tax return not deliberate concealment; penalty unjustified</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus M/S Hapur Pilkhuwa Developemnt Authority </h3> Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus M/S Hapur Pilkhuwa Developemnt Authority - TMI Issues:Income Tax Appeal under Section 260-A for assessment year 2003-04, involving penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) for disclosing inaccurate particulars of income.Analysis:1. The case involved an appeal regarding the imposition of a penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for disclosing inaccurate particulars of income. The primary issue was whether the assessee deliberately concealed income details by claiming the wrong status and revising the return after detection by the Department.2. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed a penalty of Rs. 12,10,000 under Section 271 (1) (c) after finding that the assessee, a local authority, had wrongly disclosed its status as an Artificial Juristic Person (AJP) to claim losses not due to it. The CIT (A) allowed the appeal, noting that the mistake in status disclosure was corrected in a revised return filed promptly after being pointed out by the AO.3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considered that the revised return correction was due to a Ministry notification regarding infrastructure fund utilization, not malafide intentions. The ITAT found no evidence supporting the revenue's claim of inaccurate particulars disclosure to evade tax.4. The High Court, following precedents like CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., emphasized that the mere incorrect claim, promptly corrected, did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars under Section 271 (1) (c). The Court upheld the CIT (A) and ITAT findings that no inaccurate particulars were declared, supporting the non-applicability of the penalty.5. The Court concluded that the immediate correction of the status description, which did not result in revenue loss, did not warrant a penalty under Section 271 (1) (c). The AO's imposition of penalty on a non-existing ground was deemed unjustified, leading to the dismissal of the Income Tax Appeal for lack of substantial legal questions.This detailed analysis highlights the key legal arguments and findings of the judgment, focusing on the interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act in the context of the penalty for disclosing inaccurate particulars of income.
TaxTMI 