TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 921
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... r.w.s. 153C of the Act has been completed in assessee's case on 22.12.2006 determining the total income at Rs. 65,60,469 as against the returned loss of Rs. 99,73,735. In the assessment, AO made an addition of Rs. 52,85,744 by recomputing the income under the head "Income from House Property. AO also disallowed loss on sale of fixed assets claimed for Rs. 10,74,750/-. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 22,81,879/- u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act vide his order dated 26/03/2009. 4. The ld AR submitted before the CIT (A) that the assessee has neither concealed any income nor has furnished in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om House Property" has been made by the AO only by "recomputing the income". Further, the claim made by the appellant towards loss on sale of fixed assets has been disallowed in the assessment by the AO. These are the only two additions made in the assessment completed and the impugned penalty has been levied taking into consideration tax on the total income thus computed. 3) In this connection, it is submitted as under: a) A mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee, whereby no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is exigible. Reliance is placed on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ganesan Builders Ltd (2008) 299 ITR 403 (Mad.) ii) CIT v. Natarajan (P) (2004) 266 ITR 219 (Mad). f) In the case of Gujarat Credit Corporation Ltd v. ACIT (2008) 302 ITR (AT) 250 (Ahm), the assessee held securities as investment and incurred loss and it was allowed by the AO. The assessment was reopened to bring the loss under "Capital Gains". Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) was levied. It was held that there was no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable. g) In the following cases, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been held not justified where a claim for certain expenditure is disallowed in the assessment. i) Jajoo (JK) v. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 410 (MP) ii) CIT v. Inden Bi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0] 322 ITR 0158 (SC)". 6. We have heard both parties. The addition under the head "Income from House Property" has been made by the Assessing Officer only by "recomputing the income". Due to an arithmetical mistake in the computation statement filed by the assessee along with its return of income, the impugned addition has been made. This is evident' from the Statement of Taxable income, a copy of which was submitted in the paper book. As can be seen from the said statement, it is clear that the assessee has disclosed all the facts relating to the earning of income from property in the return of income filed. Hence no particulars of income from House Property have been suppressed. The addition of Rs. 52,85,744/-has been made on recompu....