9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. Coming to the present case, we have to test whether the case of the assessee falls under the main provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act or explanation 1 attached with it. As regards the main provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, we find that there was no allegation that the assessee has claimed bogus loss by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, the claim of the assessee at the most can be regarded as inaccurate claim which cannot be equated with the inaccurate particulars of income. It is for the reason that nothing has been brought on record by the authorities below suggesting that the assessee has furnished the particulars of income with dishonest intent. As regards the explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there was no iota of evidence suggesting that the explanation offered by the assessee was false. STCG loss claimed by the assessee cannot be said amounting to concealment of particulars of income. Likewise, there was no finding of the authorities below qua the fact that the assessee fails to substantiate the explanation offered by him and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fides with respect to material facts relating to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levied the penalty of ₹ 2,55,048/- being hundred percent of the amount of tax sought to be evaded under the provisions of explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A, who also confirmed the order of the AO. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned AR before us contended that the assessee has made full disclosure of the particulars of income. Likewise, there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in the return of income. As such, the amount of loss claimed by the assessee, which was to be ignored under the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act, at the most can be regarded as inaccurate claim which is different from the allegation of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, there cannot be any penalty in the instant case. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR contended that the assessee admitted to have claimed the loss of ₹ 8,25,387/- which was to be ignored by the assessee while calculating the taxable income under the provisions of section 94(7) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the part of the assessee. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, it has to be tested whether it has been done so with the dishonest intent which cannot be regarded as an innocent act. In other words the element of consciousness in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income coupled with circumstantial evidences should be present in the particular case. Unless, the characters of inaccurate particulars of income as discussed above are present in any particular case, the penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be attracted. 8.2 Moving further, as per explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act the addition or disallowances in computation income by the AO deemed concealment of income subject to condition provided therein. Under the explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there are 2 situations. In situation (A), if the assessee failed to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be false with respect to any fact material to the computation of income, then the amount added or disallowed shall be deemed as concealment of income. In situation (B), the assessee offer an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d examined all details of dividend/bonus income and found that there is an inadvertent clerical error committed by the Chartered Accountant and on the advice of Senior Chartered Accountant, the assessee filed voluntary revised computation of income wherein a Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 1,43,53,921/- has been increased to Rs. 3,42,05,795/- due to the disallowance of Rs. 1,98,51,874/- u/s. 94(7) of the Act at the first opportunity as soon as it came to the notice of the assesee. We note that Assessee has committed this mistake for furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the return due to the inadvertent bona fide error in the claim due to one entry by the accounts staff posted at wrong date due to huge voluminous transactions and dividend coupons for dividend from same security punched at one voucher i.e. entry of two dividend received on same security (Rs. 1,98,51,874/- received on 28.1.2015 and Rs. 3,38,62,717/- received on 25.3.2015 made cumulatively on 26.3.2015 i.e. date of sale of investments (26.3.2015) and receipt date of second dividend. We further note that AO has completed the assessment on the basis of details furnished by the assessee, hence, under the circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
