9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 692 - AT - Income TaxPenalty under section 271(1)(c) Concealment of Income In this case Supreme Court held that Tribunal, as well as, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the High Court have correctly reached this conclusion as 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). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars - Following decision of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT Decision in favor of assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Assessment of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing true particulars of income. Detailed Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI involved the assessment of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1999-2000. The grounds raised by the Assessee challenged the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on various aspects. The primary contention was that the penalty order did not specify whether it was for filing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The Assessing Officer had recomputed the taxable income of the Assessee under the head other sources and levied a penalty of Rs. 1,75,214. The Assessee argued that the sub-leasing activity was part of its business, supported by the Memorandum of Association, but the authorities did not accept this argument. The Assessee contended that the Assessing Officer did not make a categorical finding on whether there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, the Ld. CIT(A) held that both aspects were the same. The Tribunal analyzed the main objects of the Memorandum of Association of the Assessee company, which included operating hotels, resorts, and providing related services. The Tribunal found that the Assessee genuinely believed the sub-leasing income was business income, disclosed all facts, and did not conceal any information. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents to emphasize that a penalty should not be imposed for a technical breach or a bona fide belief. The Tribunal further highlighted that the Assessing Officer did not provide a positive finding on whether there was concealment of income or inaccurate particulars furnished by the Assessee. The Tribunal disagreed with the Ld. CIT(A) that both aspects were the same and emphasized the need for a clear finding. The Tribunal distinguished the case from precedents where penalties were upheld for ex-facie bogus claims, emphasizing that the Assessee's claim was not wholly without basis. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, setting aside the penalty of Rs. 1,75,214. In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the distinction between furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing true particulars of income, emphasizing the need for a positive finding by the revenue authorities. The Tribunal's decision was based on the Assessee's genuine belief, disclosure of all relevant information, and the absence of deliberate concealment or inaccurate reporting, leading to the allowance of the appeal and deletion of the penalty.
|
