9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ole grievance of the assessee is against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,31,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Briefly put, the relevant facts are that the appellant is an individual, who derived income from trading in shares, salary and other sources during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The difference between the returned and the assessed income, which has prompted the Assessing Officer to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is a sum of Rs. 7.00 lacs, which has been assessed to tax as 'deemed dividend' under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this context, brief facts are that the assessee was found to have received a sum of Rs. 7.00 lacs from M/s. Classic Credit Ltd., which w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid explanation rendered by the assessee has not been accepted in the quantum proceedings and the impugned sum has been held to be assessable as a 'deemed dividend' under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, however, a mere nonacceptance of the claim does not give rise to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.1 Emphasizing that there was no deliberate intention to conceal the impugned income, the Ld. Representative for the assessee contended that the assessee and the group companies have declared incomes for assessment year under consideration of substantial amounts and in comparison the impugned sum of Rs. 7.00 lacs was an insignificant figure. Therefore, it could not be said that assessee had had deliberately not treated the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eaking, the addition of Rs. 7.00 lacs, which is the controversy before us has been held to be an amount assessable as 'deemed dividend' under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Pertinently, the said amount was found to have been received by the assessee on 27/03/2000 from M/s. Classic Credit Ltd., and in so far as the applicability of section 2(22)(e) qua the said transaction is concerned there is no dispute. No doubt, assessee contended before the income-tax authorities that the other concern i.e. M/s. Classic Credit Ltd. was also engaged in the business of dealing in shares and that the said sum was a part of the overall business transactions between the assessee and the said company, and therefore, it was claimed that the provisions of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nished any wrong or false particulars about the transaction. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.(supra) has held that unless there is a finding that any of the details or particulars supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, it would not invite the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act merely because the claim made in the return of income has been found to be unsustainable. In the present case, factually speaking, the situation is of a varying perception of the nature of transaction which has resulted in application of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, thereby resulting in a difference between returned and the assessed income. Having regard to the entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
