9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is belief the receipt was not chargeable to tax. Merely because the Assessing Officer did not accept such a stand of the assessee, would not automatically permit revenue to levy penalty. See COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] - No question of law in this respect arises. Penalty for breach of Section 54EC - HELD THAT:- Amount involved is extremely small and we therefore, do not entertain the question without going into merits thereof. We however record the confession of Shri Joshi for the assessee that the question whether investment under section 54EC can be total of ₹ 50 lakhs in all or would be capped to ₹ 50 lakhs in a assessment year, permitting similar suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... huge mismatch between the assessee's declared income and the claim of the refund of advance tax, that the revenue decided to take the return of the assessee in scrutiny during which the necessary facts could be gathered. After making additions in the hands of the assessee, the Assessing Officer instituted penalty proceedings. Such penalty was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals), upon which the assessee carried the matter before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment deleted the penalty inter-alia observing that for the year under consideration the assessee had filed return on 20th September, 2010. On the same day, the assessee had also filed a letter with the Assessing Officer giving relevant information to the effect that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had not made true and full disclosures of income in the return filed. The existence of the so-called letter dated 20th September, 2010 was doubtful. In any case, by merely writing the letter giving further details, the assessee cannot escape the penalty proceedings. He submitted that there was clear attempt on the part of the assessee to suppress the income and the attempt would have succeeded if the return had not been taken in scrutiny. He further submitted that Chartered Accountant's opinion was not produced on record. Counsel relied on certain decisions to which reference would be made at the later stage. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel Shri Joshi for the respondent-assessee opposed the appeal contending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited by Shri Chhotaray. In case of Commissioner of Income tax Vs. A. Sreenivasa Pai 242 ITR 29 Division Bench of Kerala High Court referred to the explanation added by the Finance Act, 1964 and subsequently, substituted in the year 1976 to Section 271 and observed that such explanation was introduced to shift the burden of proof from the revenue to the assessee. While doing so, the Court also observed that : It is for the fact finding body to judge the relevancy and sufficiency of the materials. If such a fact finding body, bearing the aforesaid principles in mind, comes to a conclusion that the assessee had discharged the opinion, it becomes a conclusion of the fact and no question of law arises. Reliance was placed on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
