9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dt. 10th March, 2005. 2. The facts leading to the levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are that the assessee filed return of income showing an income of Rs. 3,14,840, but during the course of assessment proceedings, a revised return was also filed showing an income of Rs. 12,59,075. The assessee had disclosed all the facts regarding the sale of a house in the original return itself. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perused the evidence available on record. 4. The undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee had withdrawn the deduction allowed in the asst. yr. 1999-2000 and had claimed the same again in this year under s. 54 of the Act. This is a case of deduction having been claimed under a bona fide misconception and belief. There seems to be no evidence on record, which can establish any wilful at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the sale of house property and do not offer the capital gain for tax, under bona fide mistake, it would amount only to a technical fault and not a concealment of taxable income therefore, no penalty for concealment under s. 271(1)(c) was leviable. The facts of this case are mutatis mutandis identical to the above case of the Hon'ble High Court and therefore, by following the above decision it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
