Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 763 - AT - Income TaxPenalty U/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- The investment made in the house purchased was withdrawn from the bank account of the son as well as wife of the assessee, which has also not been controverted by the lower authorities. The daughter in law of assessee also made payment for the purchase of house from the sale proceeds of her car. These explanations were made before the ld Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, but had not been accepted by him. It is also undisputed fact that the various additions have been confirmed by the Coordinate Bench under various heads but in our view that the assessee has filed bonafide explanation, which was not found false to the lower authorities. Whatever income in the return cannot be assumed by the Assessing Officer as concealed income as the various Hon'ble High Courts have decided this issue in favour of the assessee when financial year of relevant assessment year 2007-08 has not been ended i.e. survey was conducted on 21/3/2007, therefore, assessee for reason to file the return on or before 31st October, 2007, which has been filed on 31/10/2007 and disclosed the income at ₹ 15,19,443/- in it. The ld AR of the assessee also contended that there was no satisfaction of the Assessing Officer at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings of the Assessing Officer for specifically concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It is a fact that the ld Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings “penalty notice U/s 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” but he has not mentioned whether this penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, in the penalty order under the various heads, he held this penalty for concealed income. After considering the totality of all facts and legal position, we find that the ld CIT(A) was not right in confirming the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act even on remaining additions. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by the ld CIT(A) and dismiss the revenue’s appeal against the order of the ld CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.
|