9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1160 - HC - Income TaxLevying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - disallowance of rebate claim under Indo-Canadian DTAA - gains from the alienation of any property, other than referred under Clause 1 of Article 13 of the Indo-Canadian DTAA may be taxed in both contracting States or petitioner s case is that she has transferred the immovable property situated in India and hence, the gains arising on the same is taxable in India - Held that - There was no allegation against the petitioner of furnishing inaccurate particulars and the petitioner on receiving a notice submitted a response stating that the claim for rebate is not allowable, the petitioner had filed a revised computation statement and accordingly, the assessment was completed. Thus, the withdrawal of the rebate claimed was voluntary and in any event, the same cannot be brought within the expression concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars as in the case of M/s.MAK Data (2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT). A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. See CIT., Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Private Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Impugned order levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Impugned Order The petitioner challenged the order imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner sold an immovable property in Tamil Nadu, paid capital gain tax, and claimed a rebate under the Indo-Canadian DTAA. The respondent issued a notice questioning the rebate claim, leading to penalty proceedings. The respondent levied a penalty of ?23,31,787 under Section 271(1)(c), which the petitioner contested in the writ petition. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 271 Section 271 deals with penalties for failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, or concealment of income. The respondent invoked Section 271(1)(c) alleging the petitioner concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The petitioner argued that she provided all relevant details and did not conceal income or submit inaccurate information. Issue 3: Allegations and Responses The show cause notice did not specifically allege concealment or inaccurate particulars. The petitioner, in response, explained the inadvertent rebate claim, withdrew it, and submitted revised computations. The respondent's reasoning for penalty initiation based on potential refund if not withdrawn was deemed unjustified by the court. Issue 4: Legal Precedents Reference was made to legal precedents like MAK Data (P.) Ltd. and CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. to argue against the penalty order. The court distinguished the present case from MAK Data (P.) Ltd., emphasizing the voluntary withdrawal of the rebate claim and lack of findings on inaccurate particulars. Issue 5: Court's Decision The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order. It found no concealment or submission of inaccurate particulars by the petitioner. The court cited legal principles to support its decision, emphasizing the absence of findings on erroneous or false details in the petitioner's return. Consequently, the penalty order was deemed unsustainable in law, leading to the petition's success. In conclusion, the court's detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) highlighted the lack of grounds for imposing penalties on the petitioner, ultimately resulting in the order being quashed.
|
