Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable on the additions made towards alleged unexplained cash deposits and alleged unexplained investment in land.
Analysis: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is attracted only where concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is established, or where Explanation 1 applies because the assessee either offers no explanation, offers a false explanation, or fails to substantiate a bona fide explanation with full disclosure of material facts. In the present case, the cash deposit was explained as gifts received on the occasion of the son's birth-day, and the land-related addition rested on an unregistered sale deed which did not by itself establish title or conclusive investment. The material relied upon in the quantum proceedings was regarded as insufficient to show that the assessee's explanation was false or lacking bona fides.
Conclusion: The penalty was not leviable and was deleted; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for concealment cannot be sustained where the assessee's explanation is not shown to be false and the additions rest only on material insufficient to establish deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.