| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2443 (Ahd-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Where assessee had not deliberately failed to disclose the income under the head capital gain and claimed excessive interest expenses because the assessee himself suo moto revised computation of income and paid taxes before any finding from the AO, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars was liable to be deleted.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Leviability - Alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - Assessee had not deliberately failed to disclose income
Assessment was framed under section 143(3) after making additions in hands of assessee on account of capital gain under provisions of section 45(3) and on account of disallowance of interest expenses. Accordingly, AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) alleging that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income by not disclosing the income under the head capital gain and by claiming excess interest expenses. Held: It was found that the income on the basis of the which the addition under section 143(3) was made, was already offered by assessee by filing revised computation of income. Thus, it could be inferred that the assessee had not deliberately failed to disclose the income under the head capital gain and claimed excessive interest expenses because the assessee himself suo moto revised computation of income and paid taxes before any finding from the AO. Accordingly, in such a situation, the penalty provisions could not be attracted. Hence, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was deleted.
REFERRED : CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 189 taxman 322 (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1683 (SC), CIT v. Baroda Tin Works (1996) 221 ITR 661 (Guj) : 1996 TaxPub(DT) 0493 (Guj-HC)
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|