Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1783 - ITAT DELHIPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition of unexplained cash credit deposited in the bank u/s 68 - penalty has been imposed for intentionally furnishing “inaccurate particulars of income” - HELD THAT:- When the assessee has not been specifically made aware of the charges leveled against him as to whether there is a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on his part, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable. The case law relied upon by the ld. DR are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case in the face of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Court in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory & Ors. [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. On merits even, when we examine the copy of return along with computation of income, receipt and capital account and balance sheet it contains the entire detail as to the amount held to be unexplained cash deposit in the bank by the assessee and in these circumstances, it does not amount to concealing the particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income during assessment proceedings. Moreover, entry for the advance received by the assessee in his bank passbook cannot be termed as books of account so as to attract the provisions contained u/s 68 of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case cited as CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd.[2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee.
|