9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1388 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - AO noted that the capital gain shown by the assessee in the statement of income as a credit entry was rejected and the addition was made in respect of non-granting of LTCG - HELD THAT - Fact remains that the assessee at no point of time concealed its particulars of income or filed inaccurate particulars of income at any stage of revealing its income to the revenue authorities. Thus, in the present case Section 271(1)(c) does not apply as the assessee at no point of time concealed its income from the revenue authorities. Thus, the AO as well as the CIT(A) was not right in levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) for concealment of income related to Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) declared in the return of income. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income The assessee declared LTCG in the return of income, claiming exemption under Section 10(38). However, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim, treating the gain as from a penny stock and made an addition under Section 68. Subsequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated and a penalty of Rs. 42,876 was levied. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty. Judgment: The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not conceal income but reported LTCG as per the return. It was noted that the assessee did not conceal or provide inaccurate particulars of income to the revenue authorities. As there was no concealment, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deemed unjustified. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was deleted. In conclusion, the ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income related to LTCG, holding that no concealment had occurred. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not misrepresented any income details to the revenue authorities, leading to the deletion of the penalty.
|
