2021 (6) TMI 73

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d promoters. The return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 31.07.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 11,567/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune ('the Assessing Officer') vide order dated 07.01.2014 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 29,67,390/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 29,50,000/- being cash deposits in SB Account treating the same as unexplained cash deposits rejecting the explanation of the assessee that the cash deposits were made out of cash withdrawals through ATM on various dates and also based on the admission of the assessee that to offer the same as income in order to buy peace of mind a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before us in the present appeal. 6. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice. 7. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On perusal of the assessment order, it would suggest that disparity between the returned income and assessed income is only on account of following additions made in the assessment :- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It was an admitted position in the instant case that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It was not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee could not be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The revenue argued that submitting an incorrect claim in law for the expenditure on interest would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income. Such cannot be the interpretation of the concerned words. The words are plain and simple. In order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination,....