Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 712 - ITAT DELHIPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) – Taxation of trial run receipts – Held that:- There is no concealment of the particulars of the income inasmuch as the assessee made complete disclosure - it cannot be a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income because the assessee entertained a bona fide view that the amount of trial run receipts is not chargeable to tax in the year of receipt on the strength of similar practice followed and not disturbed in the past - The sheer fact that in the final assessment, such bona fide view taken by the assessee was jettisoned by the Revenue cannot mean that the assessee either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income – Relying upon CIT Vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT]- mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself will not attract penalty under the section when the assessee furnishes all the necessary particulars in his return of income – thus, no penalty is sustainable – Decided in favour of Assessee. Levy of penalty for wrong claim of deduction u/s 80IB - Write off of debit balance – additions were made since the advance given to a person which had no relation with sales - claim of deduction u/s 80IB out of such addition - Held that:- Once the amount of deduction u/s 80IB is deemed to have been already granted in computing the 'total income' for the purposes of Expl. 4(a), being the amount of addition representing concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, then there can be no scope for inferring that the total income representing the amount of addition would be again eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB(8A), thereby reducing the total income to Nil - the amount of income representing such addition/disallowance would have assumed the character of 'gross total income' eligible for deductions under Chapter VI-A including sec. 80-IB(8A) of the Act - the legislature has chosen to treat the amount of such addition/disallowance as 'total income' in itself, there can be no logic in subjecting such income to further deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Act for computing the amount of tax sought to be evaded – thus, the contention is rejected and the penalty is upheld – Decided against Assessee.
|