9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Assessee. - I.T.A. No. 119 of 2012, I.T.A.T. No. 199 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 21-3-2014 - Girish Chandra Gupta And Tapash Mookherjee,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate, Mr. Ravindra Tiwari, Advocate, Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ranjan Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Soma Chatterjee. Advocate. ORDER Tapash Mookherjee, J:- The present appeal Under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act 1961 is directed against an order dated 22nd March, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal B Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A. Number 981/Kol/2011 dismissing an appeal preferred by the assessee. The facts and circumstances briefly stated are as follows:- The appellant Shri Gourab Goyenka, an individ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned Advocate for the Appellant argued that all kind of errors in the Income Tax return and/or all kinds of inaccurate claims in the return do not ipso facto amount to intentional concealment attracting penalty Under Section 271 (1) (C) of the I.T. Act, and the assessing officer as well as the Appellate authorities did not consider the matter in the right perspective. Learned Advocate for the Appellant added that the mistaken claim was an accidental error for which such a huge amount of penalty should not have been imposed, especially when the return originally submitted, was revised and the Tax on such revised return was duly paid by the Appellant during the proceeding itself. Learned Advocate for the Appellant cited a decision rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the Respondent submitted that the wrong claim of deduction was not due to any accidental mistake or misunderstanding, for in that case he would have attempted to justify his claim which he admittedly did not do. He added that had the case not been picked up for scrutiny the petitioner would have succeeded in evading a huge amount of Tax. The decision re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
