TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1670
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 27.07.2023 for the A.Y. 2015-16 wherein the penalty has been imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has filed the return of income for the year under consideration on 30.09.2015 declaring loss of Rs. (-) 2,83,67,361/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 12.04.2016 was sent and served upon the assessee. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 07.07.2017 was also sent alongwith questionnaire for limited scrutiny. The assessee filed the revised reply to the said notice. It is noticed that the assessee company is engaged in the business of renting of immovable property. During....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ational Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC) has legally erred in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 22,13,910/- on additions amounting to Rs. 65,13,428/- made during the assessment proceedings which were voluntarily offered by the appellant. The Appellant prays before your lordship to direct the National Faceless Appeals Centre to delete the penalty of Rs. 22,13,910 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing. 6. We have heard Ld. AR who argued that assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Since the assessee claimed depreciation on business assets, the Ld. AO treated the income of the assessee as income from business and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed by AO. The operative portion of the order of Coordinate Bench is extracted below:- 9. Lastly, it is an established principle of law that law does not bar or prohibit an assessee for making a claim, which he believes may be accepted or is plausible; that when such a claim is made during the course of regular or scrutiny assessment, liberal view is required to be taken as necessarily the claim is bound to be carefully scrutinized both on f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue, the assessee cannot be visited with the proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, unless and until the twin requirements under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are satisfied. Viewing from any angle, we find that the impugned penalty order is unsustainable in law and while accepting the plea of the assessee, we hold that the penalty cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we direct the learned assessing officer to delete the same. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. While imposing the penalty, the AO was of the view that the penalty under that provision is a civil liability. Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prima facie, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. 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, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under s. 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income." 10. It is evident from the above judgment that making an incorrect....