| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2861 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Where assessee after learning about the serious irregularities in the activities of the institute, acted in a bonafide manner, and had withdrawn the claim of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) that was earlier raised by him and nothing was brought to notice from where it could be gathered that school had categorically claimed to have provided a bogus/accommodation entry to the assessee, therefore, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be imposed.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as regards his claim of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) - Bonafide act of assessee regarding withdrawl of claim made in 'Original' return of income -
On the basis of information received from DOI that assessee was a beneficiary of a bogus claim of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) in relation to a nongenuine contribution made to a School. Notice under section 148 was issued to assessee. In compliance to the notice issued under section 148 assessee filed his return of income, wherein he after withdrawing his earlier claim of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) declared his income. AO while culminating the assessment initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by assessee as regards the claim of deduction under section 35(1)(ii). Held: School was found to have indulged in ingenuine activities, had thus, in the return of income filed by him in compliance to Notice under section 148, assessee had in all fairness withdrawn the claim of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) that was earlier raised by him in the 'Original' return of income. Assessee after learning about the serious irregularities in the activities of the aforesaid institute, acted in a bonafide manner, and had withdrawn the claim of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) that was earlier raised by him. Nothing was brought to notice from where it could be gathered that school had categorically claimed to have provided a bogus/accommodation entry to the assessee. Therefore, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be imposed.
Followed:CIT v. Upendra V. Mithani [ITA (L) No. 1860 of 2009, dt. 5-8-2009] : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2018 (Bom-HC)Relied on:ACIT, Mumbai v. Shirish Lakhamshi Keniya, ITA No. 5385/Mum/2018, assessment year 2013-14, ITAT Mumbai, dt. 29-1-2020. M/s Pooja Hardware Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT, Mumbai, ITA No. 3712/Mum/2018, assessment year 2012-13, dt. 28-10-2019. Mahesh C. Thakkar v. ACIT, Mumbai, ITA No. 5121 5122/Mum/2018, assessment year 2012-13 and 2014-15, dt. 21-8-2019. Borsad Tobacco Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT Cen Circle 8(1), Mumbai, ITA No. 2040/Mum/2018, assessment year 2014-15, dt. 17-6-2019. Urnish Jewellers v. Asstt. CIT, Mumbai, [ITA No. 1583/Mum/2019, assessment year 2012-13, dt. 22-5-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 3888 (Mum-Trib). M/s Motilal Dahyabhai Jhaveri & Sons v. Asstt. CIT, Mumbai [ITA No. 3453/Mum/2018 and 1584/Mum/2019, assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15, dt. 24-4-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 3279 (Mum-Trib). Kitchen Essential v. ACIT, Thane, ITA No. 6672 & 6673/Mum/2013, assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15, dt. 15-1-2019. M/s Avis Life Care Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Jaipur, ITA No. 989/JP/2018, assessment year 2014-15, dt. 20-6-2019. Narbheram Vishram v. DCIT Central Circle, Kolkata, ITA No. 42 & 43/Kol/2018, assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15, dt. 27-7-2018. DCIT, Kolkata v. M/s Maco Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., ITA 16/Kol/2017, assessment year 2013-14, dt. 14-3-2018 : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1862 (Kol-Trib). Rajda Ploymers v. DCIT Kolkata, ITA No. 333/Kol/2017, assessment year 2013-14, dt. 8-11-2017.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : A.Y. 2013-14
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|