9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for the assessment year 2016-17 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') vide order dated 20.09.2021. The impugned penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi vide order dated 17.03.2022. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. For this, assessee has raised various grounds which are argumentative or exhaustive or factual, hence need not be reproduced. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is a part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, which he did only to evade tax on interest and remuneration from the firm. The AO noted that this issue was detected during assessment proceedings and he has not declared the income on his own but after detection it was declared and paid taxes. According to AO, on detection of the concealment of income, the assessee filed revised statement of income to escape the clutches of law and the claim of assessee is not a bonafide claim. Accordingly, he levied penalty @ 100% to the extent of Rs. 3,43,666/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) also confirmed the penalty by following the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors., reported in 306 ITR 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore conclusion of assessment and all the facts and circumstances commencing with the filing of original return and ending with the assessment shall be taken as relevant for considering assessee's liability for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR however contested the claim of assessee and stated that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income by declaring remuneration and interest on capitals received from firm as gross receipt. The ld. Senior DR argued that this is a fit case for levy of penalty because the assessee from earlier years claiming the same and as relied on by ld. counsel for the assessee the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Anandkumar vs. CIT reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O and even the AO processed the original return and accepted the claim, which may be wrong. We have gone through the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd., reported in [2010] 322 ITR 158, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded "the meaning of the term 'particulars' used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate 'particulars'. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By no stretch of imagination can making an incorrect claim ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
