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>Tribunal overturns penalty for income concealment, citing inadvertent error</h1> <h3>Kunalben N. Shah Versus Asstt. CIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar</h3> Kunalben N. Shah Versus Asstt. CIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar - TMI Issues:Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.Analysis:The appeal was against the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, engaged in trading old and used ship machineries, declared total income of &8377; 10,49,970/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed a loss of &8377; 2,07,551/- claimed in the P & L account, adding a penalty of &8377; 3,750/-, resulting in total addition of &8377; 2,11,301/-. The penalty was imposed for willful concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars by not adding back the loss on sale of fixed asset. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, stating that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income, rejecting the plea of inadvertent mistake. The Tribunal noted that the loss was shown in audited accounts, and the assessee, a regular taxpayer, accepted the mistake during assessment. Citing a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified, as the error was inadvertent and not an attempt to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty was quashed, and the appeal was allowed.This case revolved around whether the assessee should be penalized under section 271(1)(c) for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty due to the assessee's failure to add back a disallowed loss on sale of fixed asset to the total income. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, emphasizing that the error was not inadvertent. However, the Tribunal, considering the facts and the assessee's regular compliance, found the penalty unjustified. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal ruled that the error was inadvertent and did not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. As a result, the penalty was quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 