Mala M. Kewlani v. ITO - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 1512 (Mum-Trib) : (2013) 052 (II) ITCL 0034 Income Tax Act, 1961 --Penalty under section 271(1)(c)Concealment Rejection assessee's claim of expenditure--Assessee sold bungalow for a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs and claimed the cost of acquisition of Rs. 30,24,522. Cost of acquisition included payment made for property taxes, lease rent and security which amounted to Rs. 1,23,674. Assessing officer reduced this amount and calculated long-term capital gain in place of loss shown by assessee. Assessing officer imposed concealment penalty on the above mentioned amount. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the penalty on the ground that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, had concealed the income. Held: Not rightly so. Assessee had provided all the required facts and particulars, therefore, there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and no conscious breach of law and so, therefore penalty cannot be imposed in a case where assessee had filed its return disclosing all material facts of the case. However, the expenditure of Rs. 1,23,674 claimed by assessee was not in the nature of capital. This was also not the case of revenue that aforementioned amounts were claimed by assessee as revenue expenditure in respective years, so there could be two opinions. According to well-settled law, concealment penalty cannot be imposed on an issue where two views are possible. Therefore, levy of concealment penalty was not justified. Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 271(1)(c) Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 45 In the ITAT, Mumbai B Bench I.P. Bansal, J.M. & Rajendra, A.M. Mala M. Kewlani v. ITO ITA No. 7359/MUM/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 4 January, 2013 Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 271(1)(c) & 45 Decision: In assessees favour. Appellant by : None Respondent by : Dipak Kumar Sinha ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee. It is directed against the order passed by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)-13 Mumbai dated 3-6-2010 for assessment year 2005-06. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 1512 (Mum-Trib) : (2013) 052 (II) ITCL 0034

Income Tax Act, 1961

--Penalty under section 271(1)(c)Concealment Rejection assessee's claim of expenditure--Assessee sold bungalow for a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs and claimed the cost of acquisition of Rs. 30,24,522. Cost of acquisition included payment made for property taxes, lease rent and security which amounted to Rs. 1,23,674. Assessing officer reduced this amount and calculated long-term capital gain in place of loss shown by assessee. Assessing officer imposed concealment penalty on the above mentioned amount. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the penalty on the ground that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, had concealed the income. Held: Not rightly so. Assessee had provided all the required facts and particulars, therefore, there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and no conscious breach of law and so, therefore penalty cannot be imposed in a case where assessee had filed its return disclosing all material facts of the case. However, the expenditure of Rs. 1,23,674 claimed by assessee was not in the nature of capital. This was also not the case of revenue that aforementioned amounts were claimed by assessee as revenue expenditure in respective years, so there could be two opinions. According to well-settled law, concealment penalty cannot be imposed on an issue where two views are possible. Therefore, levy of concealment penalty was not justified.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 45

In the ITAT, Mumbai B Bench

I.P. Bansal, J.M. & Rajendra, A.M.

Mala M. Kewlani v. ITO

ITA No. 7359/MUM/2010

A.Y. 2005-06

4 January, 2013

Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 271(1)(c) & 45

Decision: In assessees favour.

Appellant by : None

Respondent by : Dipak Kumar Sinha

ORDER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee. It is directed against the order passed by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)-13 Mumbai dated 3-6-2010 for assessment year 2005-06. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: