Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 490 - ITAT RAJKOTPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - concealment of income - non specification of charge - Whether no clear finding in the notice u/s 274? - whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income with respect to such business receipts not disclosed in the income tax return? - HELD THAT:- The term concealment of particular of income has not been defined under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act. The meaning of the term concealed /inaccurate has been discussed in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that the term ‘inaccurate’ signifies deliberate act or omission on the part of the assessee. As such, the details/informations contained in the return of income /financial statements /audit report which are not correct according to truth, and were furnished by the assessee with the dishonest intent shall be treated as inaccurate particulars. We find that the assessee has disclosed the business income during the assessment proceedings which was not doubted by the authorities below. Business income was charged to tax on presumption basis under the provisions of section 44 AD of the Act. Thus it is transpired that there was no deliberate act on the part of the assessee not to disclose the business receipts in his income tax return. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment in the case of ITO Vs. Bombay wala readymade stores [2014 (11) TMI 1099 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Any addition/disallowances made during the quantum proceedings does not automatically justify the levy of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Besides the element of income added the quantum proceedings, there must be some material/circumstantial evidences leading to the reasonable conclusion that there was conscious concealment or the act of furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, we are not convinced with the finding of the authorities below. Hence we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty levied by him under section 271(1)(c). Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|