9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 379 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)( c) - declaring the income from letting out of the office premises with various facilities under the head Business Income which was declared under the head Income from House Property in the return filed in the re-assessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act and assessed accordingly - Held that - The assessee has fully disclosed all the particulars of income in the return of income filed which can not be termed as inaccurate particulars by the assessee for the income. We are of the considered views that it could not be construed as filing of inaccurate particulars of income. Recalculation of income by the AO which is different from the income returned by the assessee, in that case, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or concealed particulars of income. The assessee has fully disclosed all the facts qua his income, and therefore the penalty cannot be levied. In the case of Roborant Investments (P)Ltd (2005 (12) TMI 458 - ITAT MUMBAI ) held that where the full and complete discloser is made by the assessee, and if the income returned by the assessee under a particular head so assessed by the AO under another head of income, penalty is not imposable under section 271(1)( c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for declaring rental income under the wrong head. 2. Whether the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed income. Detailed Analysis: 1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The primary issue in these appeals is the penalty of ? 81,190/- levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) for declaring rental income from letting out office premises under "Business Income" instead of "Income from House Property". Facts: The assessee originally filed a return on 20.11.2006, declaring total income of ? 81,060/-, showing rental income under "Business and Profession". The AO later noticed discrepancies and reopened the assessment under section 148, leading to the assessee filing a revised return under "Income from House Property". The AO imposed a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, which the CIT(A) upheld. Arguments: - Assessee's Argument: The assessee argued that all material facts were disclosed, and the change in the head of income did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The revised return was filed to avoid prolonged litigation. - Revenue's Argument: The Revenue contended that the assessee intentionally showed income under the wrong head to reduce tax liability and supported the penalty imposition. Judgment: The Tribunal found that the assessee had fully disclosed all particulars in the original return, and the change in the head of income did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal referenced the case of Mimosa Investment Co.(P) Ltd., where it was held that recalculating income by the AO does not imply concealment if all material facts are disclosed. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty. 2. Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars or Concealment of Income: The Tribunal examined whether the assessee’s treatment of rental income as business income in the original return amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment. Findings: - The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed all relevant material facts and provided a bona fide explanation. The mere fact that the AO recalculated the income differently did not imply that the assessee concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars. - The Tribunal cited the case of Roborant Investments (P) Ltd., where it was held that full disclosure by the assessee and a difference in the head of income assessed by the AO does not warrant a penalty under section 271(1)(c). Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the facts of the case were covered by the aforementioned decisions and directed the deletion of the penalty. The identical issue in the subsequent appeal (AY 2007-08) was also decided similarly, applying the same rationale. Result: The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the penalties were deleted. Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the open court on 26th July, 2016.
|
