TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd has reflected loss of Rs. 32,974/-, Rs. 49,488/- and Rs. 49,084/-. Such claim of the deduction was found to be inadmissible in nature and not deductible from such receipts. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated after satisfaction on the grounds for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by claiming expenses of inadmissible in nature and not showing income under proper head of income. 3. During the penalty proceedings, the show cause notice was given and assessee has replied as under :- "During the course of assessment proceedings the AO claims that the assessee voluntarily submitted a letter dtd. 26-09-2006 stating that only on receipt of notice u/s 148 it came to his notice that through mistake he had claimed certain expenses which are of inadmissible nature and he agreed to inclusion of such expenses in his total income and on sole basis, AO added Rs. 66,747/- without making any enquiry about the nature and allowability and any finding in the matter. In fact assessee has been-adopting this practice of preparing income & expenditure account right from beginning and showing income on that basis. None of the predecessors of the AO ever took objection o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Gupta - (1997) 226 ITR 613 MP" 4. After considering the reply, the assessee has admitted his mistake. The interest on deposit with the company has to be treated as income from other sources. As per Section 57(iii) any expenditure wholly and expendable for the purpose of making and earning income, it is allowable. Therefore, the AO and CIT(A) has held that the assessee has submitted inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 99,719/- , Rs. 79,244/- and Rs. 80,965/-. 5. In the assessment year 2002-03, the assessee has submitted the statement of affairs, wherein he has shown the liability of Rs. 5,49,542/- payable to Smt. Sajjanbai. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has admitted that Smt. Sajjan Bai was his mother. She has expired on 31st December, 1990. The assessee did not have any documentary evidence to show that his mother had any income. The matter travelled up to I.T.A.T. and I.T.A.T. has directed Rs. 2.50 lakhs to be treated as money given by Smt. Sajjan Bai. Therefore, the penalty was initiated on this ground and CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty. In assessment year 2004-05, the AO has levied the penalty on the ground that the assessee has re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... below and additions have been confirmed. Therefore, it is a case of mere disallowance of expenditure without bringing any adequate material against assessee to prove that assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Assessee made a bona fide claim of deduction of the expenditure even though it was not acceptable to the revenue, would not lead to inference that assessee has concealed the particulars of income or filed inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty imposed be directed to be deleted . Ground No.3 :- Date wise events, facts of the case are as under :- (1) Assessee filed his return declaring income of Rs. 2,61,401/- 26/08/2002. (2) Return processed on u/s 143(1) (a) on 15/08/03 and AO issued notice u/s 148 on 13/02/06. (3) AO passed order on 18/12/06 on income of 9,41,018/- . (4) Being aggrieved appellant preferred an appeal before Hon'ble CIT(A), Indore, which was dismissed by order dated 25/06/2010. (5) AO issued show cause notice u/s 271 (l)(c) on 16/04/2012 and then passed order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 21/05/2012. SI. No. Date ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty under s. 271(1)(c) on 21/05/2012 was barred by limitation. Relied on: _ LT.O. vs. Bloosom Flouriculture- (2010) 134 TTJ 51 Lucknow Page 35-44 A.Y.2003-04 :- ITA no. 5391Indl 2015 Ground no. 1 &2 :- Assessee filed his return declaring income of Rs. 1,99,259/- which was assessed on 18/12/06 u/s 148 on income of Rs. 3,02,680/-. Copy of IT return is filed. Additions are for disallowance of expenses for Rs. 79,244/- and imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs. 25,000/- . Same arguments as pleaded above in A.Y. 2002-03 for penalty imposed. Ground No.3 :- Same arguments as pleaded for timebarred proceedings in A.Y.2002-03. A.Y.2004-05 :- ITA no. 540/Ind/ 2015 Ground no. 1 &2 :- Assessee filed his return declaring income of Rs. 1,88,416/- which was assessed on 18/12/06 u/s 148 on income of Rs. 4,92,953/-. Copy of I.T. return filed. Additions are for disallowance of expenses for Rs. 80,965/- and alleged addition of gifts received for Rs. 2,00,000/-. Copy of IT return of Nitin Patni with copy of cheque, Gift deed and Bank A/c are filed. Copy of IT return of Vinod Banger with copy of cheque, Gift deed and Bank A/c are filed. A.O. imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4 CIT vs. Balbir Singh - (2007) 304 ITR 125 P&H Page 32 - 34 That the assessee had disclosed all detailed particulars about his income which he had received claiming to be gift. The case did not fall within the mischief of section 271(1)(c) and it could not be concluded that the assessee had furnished incorrect particulars. No evidence with regard to concealment had been placed on record by the revenue. Penalty justified. 5 Sushil Kumar Modi Vs. Assistant C.LT. (2013) 36 CCH 0414 Jaipur Trib Page 29 Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) During assessment proceedings, AO found that assessee received two gifts of Rs. 1,00,000/- each-Since there were cash deposits in donors' account prior to date of making gift, AO doubted creditworthiness thereof and treated gifts as bogus and unexplained, made addition. Penalty was imposed- CIT(A) confirmed action of AO-Held, assessee had furnished particulars of gifts in return of income filed by him-Assessee had furnished income-tax particulars as well as declarations for making gifts from donors along with their balance sheets furnished with income tax return. In view of judgment of Apex Court in case of CIT v. Reliance Petropro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of amount surrendered by assessee-No other information was available with revenue-Cannot be said there was concealment of income-Revenues' appeal dismissed. 9 C.LT. Vs. D & H Secheron Electrodes Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 0193 MP Penalty under s. 271(l)(c)-Concealment-Absence of mens rea - Tribunal has given reasons for accepting the factual version of the assessee and found that there was no mens rea as contemplated under s. 271(1)(c) for imposing the penalty-There is no good ground to upset the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal-s-Levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) rightly cancelled. Assessee having surrendered income and the Tribunal having given reasons for accepting the factual version of the assessee. It is noticed from the record of the case that it is a case of surrender of income by the assessee and full amount of tax has been paid and found that there was no mens rea as contemplated under s. 271(1)(c), cancellation of penalty was justified. 10 C.LT. Vs. Chennupati Tyre & Rubber Products (2014) 90 CCH 0181 APHC Page 4 -7 Penalty u/s 271 (1)( c)-Concealment of income-Assessee filed a return, showing loss for A Y 1994-95-Intimation was given ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed notices to assessee uls 148 and in response revised return of income was filed by assesseeAssessment was completed and revised returns filed by assessee was accepted by AO without any addition-However penalty uls 271(1)(c) was initiated against assessee on grounds of concealment of income-Meanwhile, assessee died and legal heirs of deceased assessee requested AO to drop the penalty proceedings-Denying explanation given by legal representative, AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on grounds that assessee had filed revised return only after the survey was conducted uls 133A and assessee had failed to disclosed unexplained investment-CIT(A) and ITA T dismissed assessee's appeal-Held, once an explanation is submitted, onus shifts to Revenue to come to a conclusion that explanation was not acceptable and therefore case falls uls 271 (1 )( c) when assessee had given some reasonable explanation, it was incumbent on part of Authority to consider same on its own merits before proceeding further-In present case, explanation made on basis of Explanation B to Section 271(1)(c) was satisfied by assessee and his legal heirs to some extent, but, same was not considered by revenue authorities-O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and not otherwise- In present case, onus cast upon assessee was discharged by giving cogent and reliable explanation-If department did not agree with explanation, then onus was on it to prove concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income-Such onus was not discharged by AO-Order of Tribunal confirmed. " 9. The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the order of CIT(A). 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. In assessment year 2002-03, we find that the assessee has claimed in the return of income that he has inherited this capital of Rs. 5,49,542/- from his mother Smt. Sajjanbai. The assessee has added this amount in his capital account. The AO and the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same, but the I.T.A.T. has restricted this addition to the tune of Rs. 2,99,542/- and this capital was inherited from his mother. We find that the assessee has disclosed the entire facts before the authorities and the assessee has made the claim in his return of income and it was his bona fide claim. The Tribunal has accepted the claim that the assessee has claimed Rs. 5,49,542/-, but the Tribunal has restricted the above addition to Rs. 2,99,542/-. Therefore, ....