2014 (1) TMI 1868

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....outh Indian Cooperative Bank Rs. 15,75,000 Indian Bank Rs. 1,89,540   Rs. 17,64,540 4. Against such rental income, the assessee claimed expenses such as society charges, conveyance, repairs & maintenance, rates & taxes,  interest, depreciation, aggregating to Rs. 14,58,890/-. The AO required the assessee to explain, as to why the income from rent be not treated as income from house property. The assessee on such action by the AO, accepted the income to be under the head house property. 5. The AO thus treated the variance of income, as consequence of the change in head of income, as an addition and assessed the same at Rs. 5,41,724/-. As a consequence thereof, the AO inferred that penalty was exigible and thus ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r considering that there is concealment of income. In the same way, there is no case for furnishing inaccurate particulars as all the details including the agreement were placed on record. Therefore, we have no hesitation in canceling the penalty. 4. Dhananjay V. Gupta, Mumbai vs Department of Income Tax on 8 May, 2013 [ITA 3719/Mum/2011]: It was held that merely because the assessee had made a claim which was not accepted or acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself could not attract the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). As noted by the ld. CIT(A) in his impugned orders in this regard, full disclosure was made by the assessee regarding the nature of his  income which was also reflected in the certificate issued by the employer.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nalty u/s 271(1)(c). 8. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals vs DCIT 49 DTR (Mum)(Tri)16: No penalty can be levied for mere change in the head of income. 9. CIT vs Shyam Tex International Ltd. [43 DTR (Del)19]: No penalty can be levied for mere change in the head of income. 10. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. vs Dy. CIT 42 SOT 325: A legal claim per se, right or wrong, cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 11. Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd vs Ast. CST 1980 124 ITR 15 SC CIT v. Ahmed Tea Co. (P) Ltd. (1978) 113 ITR 74 (Gau) Adl. CIT v. Sawan Motor Stores 109 ITR 660 (AP) Unless the filing of return is accompanied by a guilty m....