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 upholds penalty for inaccurate income details</h1> <h3>Mukesh Saligram Sharda Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (2), Kalyan (W)</h3> Mukesh Saligram Sharda Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (2), Kalyan (W) - TMI Issues:Appeals against penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12.Analysis:1. The appeals were against penalty orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Despite no representation from the assessee, the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte. Disallowance of bogus purchases was partly upheld by the FAA and further by the ITAT, leading to penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for both years.2. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty citing deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. The assessee's claims were deemed incorrect, and the Ld. CIT(A) found the assessee's actions deliberate and willful, falling within the ambit of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The reliance was placed on precedents where penalty was justified for inaccurate particulars resulting in hiding income.3. The assessee contended that all information was provided in the income tax return and argued against the penalty imposition. However, the Ld. CIT(A) found the claims to be wrong and not bonafide, upholding the penalty based on the decisions in relevant cases. The Tribunal agreed with the disallowance of part of the bogus purchases, emphasizing the failure of the assessee to substantiate the purchases despite verification attempts by the Assessing Officer.4. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders, stating that the disallowance was not merely an estimate but a result of the assessee's wrong actions leading to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s reasoned order and dismissed the appeals, confirming the penalty imposition for both assessment years.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for the assessment years in question.
TaxTMI 