2015 (2) TMI 1161

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that there is apparently concealment of income as during assessment proceedings the assessee has not suo motto surrendered the interest income. He has surrendered the interest income only when he was cornered by the AO. In other words is has himself accepted the interest income as concealed income. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by relying on decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorothia Engineering Co. Vs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that assessee had concealed/furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore is liable for penalty is wrong. It is an estab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in his written submission that the bank by mistake provided a wrong TDS certificate showing the incorrect interest therein and after realizing the mistake the said bank rectified their TDS return but no fresh/rectified TDS certificate issued to appellant. Thus at the time of filing of I.T. Return the appellant shown the interest income which was reflected in TDS certificate. Thus the appellant bonafide belief that he had shown correct interest income in his return of income. Further on getting information for his mistake, he had immediately surrendered the amount and agreed to pay tax due over the same. During entire assessment proceeding the appellant was very cooperative and supportive. The Ld AO in her assessment order had not pointed an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of income have been furnished by the assessee." 9. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial decision:- (i) 259 ITR 212 (Raj.)- CIT Vs. Harshvardhan Chemicals & Mineral Ltd. Held- "No penalty of concealment if the claim of the assessee is debatable and arguable." (ii) 39 ITR 233 (Del.) (iii) 261 ITR 67 (Raj) - Chandra Bagga Vs. ITAT (2003) (iv) CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 36 DTR 449 (SC)   Held: "Merely because of the assessee's claim deduction of the interest of expenses which has not been accepted by revenue penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not attracted, merely making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amoun....