Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 191 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(l)(c) - assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming excessive deduction under section 54F - contention of the assessee that there was no specific charge levied by the AO whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particular of income - HELD THAT:- AO has mentioned the specific charge in the penalty order by stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly we hold that, the assessee cannot get the benefit of immunity from the penalty merely there was no specific charge in the penalty notice issued under section 274 of the Act or in the assessment order. We, in this regard, draw support and guidance from the judgment of Snita Transport Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (12) TMI 981 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT]wherein it was held that penalty cannot be imposed without mentioning the specific charge. Whether the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income with respect to such excess deduction claimed under section 54F ? - The term inaccurate particular of income has not been defined under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act the Act. However, the meaning of the term inaccurate has been discussed in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT]wherein it was held that the term ‘inaccurate’ signifies deliberate act or omission on the part of the assessee. As such, the details/information contained in the return of income /financial statements /audit report which are not correct according to truth, and were furnished by the assessee with the dishonest intent shall be treated as inaccurate particulars. In the present case we find that the deduction under section 54F of the Act was claimed for the investment made by the assessee in two properties. The fact for the purchase of two properties was not doubted by the authorities below. The assessee has immediately on receipt of the notice under section 142(1) of the Act has revised the computation of income restricting the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act from ₹ 89,83,817.00 and paid the due taxes. Thus it is transpired that the assessee has claimed deduction for the investment in two properties under the bona-fide believe and he did not claim excessive deduction under section 54F of the Act deliberately. Revenue has also not brought any material suggesting that the assessee deliberately furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. In our considered view any addition/disallowances made during the quantum proceedings does not automatically justify the levy of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|