Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 98 - ITAT CHANDIGARHLevy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) - agricultural land purchase - Held that:- This matter was investigated by office of the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Ludhiana and DDIT (Investigation) Ludhiana vide his report dated 27.08.2009 (PB-24) recommended for dropping of the proceedings because assessee was able to explain source of the money invested in purchase of the agricultural land which is the same explained by the assessee. Therefore, assessee is able to explain the addition of ₹ 14,77,000/- which in the opinion of authorities below, may not be acceptable but it proved that assessee explained this issue and explanation of the assessee appears to be bonafide. Addition on account of agriculture income, the authorities below did not accept contention of assessee regarding ₹ 7,20,000/- on account of agriculture income because agriculture income was not shown in the return of income. But the assessee, time and again explained that agricultural land was held by HUF of which assessee was also one of the co-parcener. The sale proceeds were credited in the account of the assessee. merely because assessee has not shown agriculture income for himself may not be relevant for the purpose of levying the penalty against the assessee. Assessee offered explanation on the additions which were not found to be false. The explanation of the assessee is substantiated through evidence and material on record and assessee is able to prove that his explanation was bonafide and all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income had been disclosed to the Revenue authorities. Mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding income of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|