Levy of penalty for excess capital gains deductions challenged; tribunal finds inadvertent error and quashes penalty relief for assessee.

Levy of penalty under tax provisions for excess claim of capital gains exemptions was examined; tribunal found the assessee had disclosed correct long-term capital gain and claimed deductions for reinvestment which the Revenue did not allege were substantively non-compliant, concluding the excess deduction resulted from an inadvertent computational mistake and not concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, relied on relevant precedent to distinguish deliberate concealment, and held that penalty under the penal provision was not sustainable, thereby allowing the assessee and finding error in the appellate confirmation of penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be sustained for an excess claim of deductions under Sections 54F and 54B where the return furnished the particulars of income and the excess claim resulted from an inadvertent mistake subsequently rectified during assessment proceedings.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined whether the excess claim amounted to concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c). The decision applies the legal principle that a mere claim which is unsustainable in law does not necessarily amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars if the particulars supplied in the return are not factually incorrect, erroneous or false. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed the capital gain particulars in the return, the excess deduction arose from an inadvertent error in claiming exemptions under Sections 54F and 54B, and the assessee revised the computation during assessment proceedings before the statutory date for filing a revised return. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court precedent establishing that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires inaccurate particulars or concealment of particulars and that mere failure of a claim in law does not automatically attract penalty. The Tribunal found no allegation or finding that any particulars furnished were factually false or that conditions for exemption under Sections 54F/54B were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and is deleted; the decision is in favour of the assessee.

---