Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2019 (1) TMI 1463

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessment year 2013-14 on the grounds inter alia that :- "1 The learned CIT (Appeal) was not justified by dismissing the appeal. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in summarily rejecting the plea of the appellant with respect to following. a) That the Learned Assessing Officer has erred both on facts and in law imposing a penalty of Rs. 8,30,500/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for alleged concealment of income amounting to Rs. 28,68,750/- being the alleged addition under section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 b) That the several observations as made and inferences drawn are untenable, incorrect, unwarranted." 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the contro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lery business by seeking confirmation of debtor amounting to Rs. 15,20,750/-; and third, addition of Rs. 9,40,000/- on account of lack of verification of purchase of jewellery. It is also not in dispute that during appellate proceedings, ld. CIT (A) has extended the relief of Rs. 1,93,495/- to the assessee. 7. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the lower Revenue authorities and arguments addressed by the ld. AR to the parties, the sole question arises for determination in this case is:- "as to whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income during assessment proceedings while interpreting the provisions contained u/s 271....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. 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 detail 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, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By no stretch of imagination can making an incorrect claim t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts were written off in the books of account and were claimed as deduction on account of loss which occurred to the assessee in the computation of total income. The Tribunal analysing the facts had expressed the view that there had been no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income and the assessee had declared the entire material. It was a case where a claim put forth by the assessee as regards the loss was not accepted but that would not per se tantamount to furnishing any kind of inaccurate particulars. Thus, there had been no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Hence, the cancellation of penalty was valid." 12. Moreover, the AO before initiating the penalty proceedings has not recorded satisfaction....