2012 (2) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-II, Jaipur, dated 26.08.2011 against sustaining the levy of penalty of Rs.43,359/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short, the Act') relating to assessment year 2006-07. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.08.2077 declaring income of Rs.3,20,028/-. Thereafter, assessee revised here return by which deduction under section 8....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ars of income. Therefore, she levied a penalty of Rs.43,359/-. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO by observing that the assessee had made wrong claim. While confirming the action of the AO, the ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on various case laws i.e. (i) Smt. Ram Piari Vs. CIT, reported in 327 ITR 318 (P&H) Mussadilal Rambharose Vs. CIT, reported in 165 ITR 14 (SC) etc. 3. Now, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not sought any help from legal practitioner, as she filed return at her own. Therefore, it is presumed that assessee is not aware of the legal provisions of the Act that deduction is allowable under section 80G on a sum gifted and not on fixed assets. She has not filed any appeal against the assessment order. Therefore, from all these facts, it is found that there was bonafide mistake in revising....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d upon the return filed by the assessee because that is the only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. Where such particulars are found to be inaccurate, liability would arise. To attract penalty, the detail supplied in the return must not be accurate, not exact or correct, not according to the truth or erroneous. Where there is no finding that any details supplied....