9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 560 - AT - Income TaxPenalty Deduction u/s 80HHC Short term capital loss - There cannot be a straight jacket formula for detection of these defaults of concealment or of furnishing inaccurate partic ulars of income and indeed concealment of particulars of income and in accurate particulars of income may at times overlap - In addition to main provisions of concealment has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income there are deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed - In the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. (2010 -TMI - 75701 - SUPREME COURT)the Hon ble Supreme Court held that where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) The claim regarding 80 HHC & 80 GG have been sent back to the AO and some part of ground related to 80 HHC has been decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT - In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for wrong claim of deduction under section 80 HHC. 2. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for wrong claim of deduction under section 80-GGB. 3. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for wrong claim of short-term capital loss under section 94(7). Detailed Analysis: 1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Wrong Claim of Deduction under Section 80 HHC: The assessee contested the penalty imposed by the AO for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by claiming excess deduction under section 80 HHC. The ITAT had previously remitted the issue of calculation of deduction under section 80 HHC back to the AO for reconsideration. The AO believed that claiming a deduction in excess of what was eligible constituted furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, thus attracting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). However, the ITAT found that the assessee had disclosed full particulars and made a bona fide claim. The penalty was canceled as the assessee's actions did not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 2. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Wrong Claim of Deduction under Section 80-GGB: The AO imposed a penalty for the assessee's claim of deduction under section 80-GGB, which was contrary to the provisions since the donation was made to the General Electoral Trust and not to a political party as required. The ITAT had remitted this issue back to the AO with specific directions. The assessee argued that the claim was made in good faith and with full disclosure. The ITAT agreed with the assessee, noting that the claim was bona fide and that there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was canceled. 3. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Wrong Claim of Short-Term Capital Loss under Section 94(7): The AO penalized the assessee for not disclosing the short-term capital loss on the sale of securities, which was disallowable under section 94(7). The AO argued that the assessee engaged in 'dividend stripping' and did not disclose this in the computation of income. The assessee did not press this ground in the quantum appeal but argued in the penalty proceedings that the transactions were not equity-linked and were disclosed in the return. The ITAT found that the assessee had made a bona fide claim with full disclosure and that there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was canceled. Conclusion: The ITAT concluded that the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) were not justified as the assessee had made bona fide claims with full disclosure and had not concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The penalties were therefore canceled, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
|
