Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 429 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s.271(1)(c) - unconfirmed/unsubstantiated cash credit - Assessee’s claim is that the necessary particulars were duly submitted - Held that:- The lack of response from the creditors cannot lead to an inference of concealment. As regards the cash credit of ₹ 2 lacks it has been submitted that name of the party was duly disclosed and assessing officer has failed to take cognizance of the same. In these circumstances in our considered opinion assessee cannot be held guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Ld. CIT was aware of this aspect but has held that the difference between assessed income and the returned income leads to an inference that there was concealment. This is totally against the exposition of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro product [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] Furthermore we note that a larger bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan steel Ltd vs State of Orissa [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME Court] had expounded that penalty need not be levied if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. In the facts and circumstances of this case in our considered opinion the assessee's conduct is not contumacious to warrant levy of penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|