Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 235 - ITAT DELHIPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- The overall effect of the Assessment Order dated 29.12.2017 was that the head under which the an amount was assessed, changed from income under “PGBP” (as shown by the assessee) to addition U/s 68 of IT Act, (as assessed by the Assessing Officer); in the process, however, assessing income of the assessee is same as the returned income of the assessee. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have failed to make out a case for levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act because they have been unable to show, when assessed income is same as returned income; whether, and if so, how allegation of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income can be said to have resulted in tax sought to be evaded by the assessee. That there was some tax sought to be evaded by assessee, is a necessary condition for imposition of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) - The allegation of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee had the bogus income or bogus credit, is pointless, because the corresponding amount of ₹ 6,62,000/- was already included in the returned income of the assessee. For levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) , what has to be shown is whether, and if so, how, assessee can be said to have sought to evade tax. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. Sr. DR have failed to establish conclusively that the assessee had sought to evade tax.- Penalty deserves to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.
|