9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd calculated long term capital gain - Decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n can be treated as bonafide and penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is not leviable. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the penalty. 5. We find that the assessee had disclosed long term capital loss of Rs. 21,71,434/-. In the computation of income, the assessee has taken cost of acquisition of land at Rs.26,10,000/- and shown sale consideration at Rs.26,10,000/-. Later on, vide his letter dated 26.11.2004, the assessee revised the sale consideration at Rs.53,98,000/- as per Section 50 C of the IT Act and offered the capital gains for taxation. Since the assessee in its original return has not offered this amount for taxation, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... articulars of the income. As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word "particular"; is a detail or details (in plural sense); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word "particulars"; used in the Section 271(1)(c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. It is an admitted position in the present case that no information given in the Return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It is not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. 11. The Learned Counsel argued that "submitting an incorrect claim in law for the expenditure on interest would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 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." 7. We do not find any error in the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in holding that the penalty was not leviable inasmuch as the assessee himself had disclosed the additional income vide letter dated 26.11.2004, before passing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
