TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 83
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Though Ld. A.O. neither proved concealment nor found furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad is not justified to confirm the penalty of Rs. 1,30,000/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. While calculating the amount of penalty., The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in not giving the effect of the order of honorable tribunal in quantum appeal. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,30,000/- without considering the difference between amount of receipts shown in case paper and receipt shown in 3C Register which is only Rs. 23,900/- out of which Rs. 15,100/- duly e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....explanation if any, for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. In response thereto, the assessee vide his letter dated 02/03/2010 for the sake of convenience the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under: "2. That in the humble submission of the assessee, it has been time and again held through various judicial pronouncements that where a claim is made or an expense claimed by the assessee in the return of income under some bonafide belief and the same is supported by cogent explanations and evidence, it is open to the taxing authorities to reject the same, but the same would not, per se, establish the guilt of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of S.271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eponderance of probabilities. It is therefore, not necessary for the assessee, in order to discharge his burden, to prove his point to the hilt. 3. in a very recent decision of C1T v. Reliance petroproducts (P.) ltd. [2010] 322 1TR 158(SC), it has been distinctly held by the Supreme Court that in order to be covered by section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By no stretch of imagination, making incorrect claim tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars 'Merely because an expense or exemption claimed by the assessee has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case register, cash and bank book etc. On perusal of the case register produced by the assessee in Form No.3C, the A.O. noticed certain discrepancies which are illustrated in Page No. 3 of the order of assessment, for the sake of reference, the same is reproduced as under: Sl. No. Name of the patient Date of discharge Amount received as per case paper(Rs.) Amount shown in 3C register (Rs.) 1. Ismail Vora 16/10/2002 2825 Nil 2. Ismail Vora 25/10/2002 1175 Nil 3. Tapu N. parmar 27/11/2002 2800 Nil 4. Satishbhai 26/11/2002 1600 Nil 5. Vimal T. Khanna 26/11/2002 400 Nil 6. Natwarbhai Patel 19/10/2002 3100 2600 7. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n be seen that the same are general in nature. It is the submission of the assessee that time and again held through various judicial pronouncements that where a claim is made or an expense claimed by the assessee in the return of income under some bonafide belief and the same is supported by cogent explanations and evidences, it is open to the taxing authorities to reject the same, but the same would not, per se, establish the guilt of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the of sec.271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act. The submission made by the assessee in this respect is found to be correct. In the case of the assessee penalty was initiated not on the disallowance of expenditure but penalty was initiated on the estimation of the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not recording certain receipts as pointed out in the order of assessment. Had the survey action u/s.133 not been conducted on assessee the concealment of income and on reliability of books of account could not be deducted by the department. In view of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(l)(c). I, therefore, levy a penalty of Rs. 1,30,000/- as against maximum penalty leviable of Rs. 2,85,009/-. This order is passed with the previous approval of the Jt.C.I.T., Range- 9, Ahmedabad vide letter No.Jt.CIT./Range.9/Pen.Approval/2011-12 dated 12/03/2012. The working of the penalty is given below for ready reference. A) Assessed income 5,71,300/- B) Tax on assessed inc....