2015 (3) TMI 574

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the claim of the assessee was a debatable one and there was no specific finding that the assessee had submitted false or incorrect accounts ?" In brief, facts of the case are that the appellant-assessee filed its return of income on 15.2.1996 declaring total income of Rs. 7490/-. The assessee sold one Dal Mill in the year previous to the assessment year for a consideration of Rs. 19,14,000/-. The assessee, however, did not declare any profit/ short term capital gain on the sale of Dal Mill by treating that as a long term capital gain. As per record, Return Down Value (WDU) of Dal Mill as on 1.4.1994 was Rs. 9,57,482/-. The assessee claimed depreciation on the Dal Mill during the assessment year 1985-85 t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evied penalty @ 150% of on the total income concealed. The appeal giving challenge to the order passed by the Assessing Officer came to be dismissed vide order dated 7.10.2010. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while affirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer observed that the appellant failed to produce material evidence to substantiate its explanation that the claim made in return of income was bonafide one. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax accepted the finding given by the Assessing Officer that the instant one was not a case of difference of opinion, but relating to concealment of income and submission of inaccurate particulars of income. The appeal preferred by the assessee before the learned Income Tax Appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....were available on record and if the Assessing Officer was having any difference of opinion, he would have made necessary additions, but could not have imposed any penalty as nothing was concealed in the returns furnished. Learned counsel for the Revenue on the other hand submits that the assessee failed to satisfy the basis on which he claimed depreciation, therefore, the penalty was rightly imposed. Heard learned counsels. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 provides that if the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is satisfied that any person has concealed particulars of his income or has furnished inaccurate ....