TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated July 29, 2013 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), qua the assessment year 2010- 11 on the grounds inter alia that : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,81,800 imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. That the penalty is base on disallowance of professional and management expenses and penalty for disallowance of expenses per se cannot lead to concealment. 3. That the Assessing Officer has grossly failed in recording justification for initiation and finalisation of penalty proceedings. 4. That the bona fide explanat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ees but has failed to present in the office for cross examination. So, the Assessing Officer proceeded to conclude that the assessee booked these expenses just to reduce his income as Ms. Divya Khanna, a 20 year old student, was not having any active participation in the business of the share market and moreover, there was no other transaction in the bank account of Ms. Divya Khanna other than an amount of Rs. 6,00,000 debited by the assessee under the head professional fees. Consequently, the Assessing Officer sought to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee had debited....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the arguments addressed by the learned authorised representatives of the parties to the appeal and facts and circumstances of the case, the sole question arises for determination in this case is : "as to whether the Assessing Officer/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) have erred in imposing/affirming the penalty of Rs. 6,00,000 on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by debiting inadmissible expenses on account of making commission payment of Rs. 6,00,000 to Ms. Divya Khanna for providing tips for purchasing shares ?" 9. Operative part of the penalty order imposing penalty of Rs. 1,81,800 on the assessee is reproduced as under for ready reference : "In view of this it is clear that the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is reproduced for ready reference as under (headnote) : "A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word 'particulars' used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, th....