2018 (1) TMI 1328

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e amount of Rs. 46,350/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer." 2. The only issue involved in the appeal, is against sustaining the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) of Rs. 15,450/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. While pleading on behalf of the assessee, the ld AR has submitted that the assessment U/s 143(3) of the Act was finalized on 21/11/2011 and a trading addition of Rs. 1,36,400/- was made. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the rejection of books of account and restricted the addition to Rs. 50,000/- only. Thus, the estimated trading addition made by the Assessing Officer itself was not based on any concrete facts and the ld. CIT(A) has just sustained an ad hoc addition of Rs. 50,000/-. Therefor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Guj) f. CIT vs. Raj Bans Singh (2005) 276 ITR 351 (All) g. CIT v. Aero Traders (2010) 231 CTR 524 (Delhi) h. CIT v. Modi Industrial Corporation (2010) 195 Taxman 68 (P&H) i. CIT v. Vijay Kumar Jain (2010) 325 ITR 378 (Chattisgarh) j. Shiv Narain Jamnalal (MP High Court): 7 ITD 795: held that where trading addition has been made by rejecting the books of accounts, no penalty was imposable for such estimated addition. Ld. AR pleaded that the penalty should not be imposed automatically merely because some addition has been sustained. He also relied on the following case laws: a. In the case of ACIT v VIP Industries 122 TTJ 289 (Mum) it was held that, where addition is made the penalty shall not automatically follow. In a case of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssee, because that is the only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. To attract penalty, the details supplied in the return must not be accurate, not exact or correct, no according to the truth or erroneous. Where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in Its return are found to be 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 inaccurat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X