9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 940 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271 - Furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income of assessee - Held that - CIT(A) has rightly held that the disclosures made by the assessee in this regard were bona fide and were not false or fanciful. We find that Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee did not file inaccurate particulars of income in claiming deduction of the aforesaid amount. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), hence, we uphold the same. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act by Ld. CIT(A). 2. Applicability of Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 3. Consideration of different heads of income by the assessee to avoid tax liability. 4. Appeal by the Revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A). Analysis: 1. The Revenue appealed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty of Rs. 12,78,171 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, alleging that the assessee willfully treated income in a manner leading to loss of revenue. The AO had imposed the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) held that none of the conditions of Explanation 1 under section 271(1)(c) applied to the case. The addition made by the AO was due to a difference in the interpretation of law, not inconsistency in facts provided by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, citing the Supreme Court's decision that mere confirmation of addition by higher authorities does not automatically attract penalty provisions. 3. The assessee had shown income under different heads to reduce tax liability. However, the Ld. CIT(A) found the disclosures to be bona fide and not false, concluding that the penalty was wrongly imposed by the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) referred to a judgment where the High Court set aside the ITAT's decision in favor of the assessee, supporting the deletion of the penalty. 4. The Tribunal upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A), emphasizing that the High Court had already ruled in favor of the assessee in the quantum appeal. The Tribunal concurred with the Ld. CIT(A)'s reasoning that the penalty was rightly deleted as the disclosures were genuine and not misleading. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty, considering the bona fide nature of the assessee's disclosures and the lack of false particulars in claiming deductions. The judgment highlighted the distinction between penalty and assessment proceedings, emphasizing that the confirmation of additions by higher authorities does not automatically warrant a penalty under the I.T. Act.
|
