Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 1151 - AT - Income TaxPenalty under section 271(1)(c) - unexpalined deposits - Held that:- This is clearly not a case of false explanation as we have already pointed out that the explanation given by the assessee is a plausible one. Even in the order of the ITAT, said explanation given by the assessee has been quoted extensively. Once the explanation given by the assessee is found not to be false, to bring the case under the ambit of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it has to be seen that, whether the same is substantiated or not. Section 68 is a deeming fiction, whereby an amount which though not proved to be the income of the assessee is deemed to be so. In the present case, the explanation of the assessee though was not accepted in its entirety, there is no material on the basis of which it would be held that the same was not bona fide. The explanation given by the assessee has not been disproved. From the order of the AO in penalty, it is quite apparent that he has not been able to record any finding with regard to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income of the assessee. He has not even considered explanation given by the assessee and merely on the basis of ITAT order, he levied the penalty. The A.O has not brought any evidence to conclude that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. In the quantum appeal, the Tribunal has accepted explanation of the assessee to the extent of deposit of ₹ 2,30,000/- as explained and partly confirmed the addition stating that explanation given by the assessee was not convincing. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed his income or furnished any inaccurate particulars. - Decided in favour of assessee
|