9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1127 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - penalty has been levied on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. - HELD THAT - As perused the copies of return for assessment year 2009-10 filed before us in the paper book wherein all the details of loss carried forward has been reflected by the assessee to the tune of ₹ 33,69,239/-. Non filing of revised return is hypothetical assumption by the Department that the assessee intends to conceal the income which is however not demonstrated by any evidence on record. Hence, this cannot be accepted. Once penalty has been imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the case of the assessee as facts demonstrated there is no lapse by the assessee on this count. As relying on RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT and PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS (P.) LTD. 2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty from the hands of assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2010-11 based on inaccurate particulars of income furnished by the assessee. Analysis: Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) The crux of the grievance in this case revolves around the imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income due to the disallowed claim of brought forward business loss. The Assessing Officer contended that the assessee could have rectified the mistake by revising the return of income for the relevant assessment year. However, the assessee argued that all income particulars were accurately furnished, and the non-filing of a revised return should not be a ground for imposing the penalty. The Tribunal noted that the penalty was imposed on hypothetical assumptions by the Department without concrete evidence of intention to conceal income. The Tribunal referred to relevant Supreme Court judgments such as Price Water House Cooper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT and CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. to support its decision. Issue 2: Assessment of Facts Upon examining the case records and considering the contentions of both parties, the Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed the details of the loss carried forward in the return for the previous assessment year. The Tribunal emphasized that the non-filing of a revised return should not automatically imply an intention to conceal income. The Tribunal concluded that there was no factual basis to support the imposition of the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Relying on the binding judgments of the Supreme Court, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee. Conclusion The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was unjustified in this case. By analyzing the facts and legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty should be removed from the hands of the assessee. The judgment was pronounced on 30th July 2019 by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune, with Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM, and Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM presiding over the case.
|
