| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3029 (Kol-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Since assessee had filed all the relevant supporting evidences in support of genuineness of this stated long-term capital gains derived during the course of scrutiny and quantum and penalty proceedings stand on different footing and each and every disallowance/addition in the former does not ipso facto attract the latter penal provision, therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be attracted.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Bogus long-term capital gains - Assessee had filed all relevant supporting evidence in support of genuineness of its claim -
AO imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on alleged bogus long-term capital gain. Revenue's case was that assessee was rightly penalized under section 271(1)(c) since he himself had surrendered his long-term capital gains claim to be exempt under section 10(38) as bogus. It therefore emphasizes that assessee's said voluntary surrender makes him liable for consequential penalty as well. Held: Apex court's landmark decision in Reliance Petroproducts' case (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1683 (SC) had settled the law that quantum and penalty proceedings stand on different footing and each and every disallowance/addition in the former does not ipso facto attract the latter penal provision. Assessee had filed all the relevant supporting evidence in support of genuineness of this stated long-term capital gains derived during the course of scrutiny. Therefore, such an instance neither amounts to concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c).
Followed:CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1683 (SC) and Amita Tulsyan v. ITO [ITA No.1513/Hyd/2018 dated 10-5-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 3869 (Hyd-Trib)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2015-16
IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|