9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellate authority ? ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate tribunal was justified in not waiving the penalty in full when it had accepted the fact that the additional income was offered by the appellant voluntarily and it cannot be considered as a concealed income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act ? iii.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate tribunal was justified in sustaining the order of the appellate authority to the extent of 100% of the penalty when it has been accepted by it that the additional income was offered voluntarily by the appellant and it cannot be considered as concealed income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act ?" 2. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e A.O. has also made an addition of Rs. 90,000/-, pertaining to rent received by the appellant's wife on the ground that the building was owned by the appellant, though the rent was received by the appellant's wife. 4. I.T.A.No.223/2013 pertains to the assessment year 2002-03. In response to notice under Section 153A, the appellant had filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 7,32,020/- and an agricultural income of Rs. 5,27,000/- and the assessment was completed on 07.03.2006. The A.O. made an addition of Rs. 84,000/-, being rent received by appellant's wife vide assessment order at Annexure B. 5. I.T.A.No.224/2013 pertains to the assessment year 2003-04. In response to the notice under Section 153A, the appellant had filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 153A of the Act, which by itself would make the assessee liable to penalty. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee relies on the decision reported in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd., [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) in support of his argument that there has been no concealment so as to attract the provisions under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to an earlier decision Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT [2007] 6 SCC 329 and held thus in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment; extracted below:- "9. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate statement, copy or transcript." 11. We have already seen the meaning of the word "particulars" in the earlier part of this judgment. Reading the words in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. We 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 asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
