Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 244 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as regards his claim of deduction under Sec. 35(1)(ii) - claim made in ‘Original’ return of income - HELD THAT:- Assessee on learning about the fact that School of Human Genetics & Population Health was found to have indulged in ingenuine activities, had thus, in the return of income filed by him in compliance to Notice u/s 148, had in all fairness withdrawn the claim of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) that was earlier raised by him in the ‘Original’ return of income. At this stage, we may herein observe that though serious irregularities were found in the activities of the aforesaid institute viz. School of Human Genetics & Population Health, but then, we cannot also remain oblivious of the fact that no clinching evidence had emerged which would prove beyond doubt that the assessee had not made any genuine contribution to the said institute. In the case of the present assessee before us, we hold a conviction that he had after learning about the serious irregularities in the activities of the aforesaid institute, acted in a bonafide manner, and in his return filed in compliance to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, had withdrawn the claim of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) that was earlier raised by him in the ‘Original’ return of income nothing has been brought to our notice from where it could be gathered that the aforesaid institute had categorically claimed to have provided a bogus/accommodation entry to the assessee before us. Be that as it may, as observed by us hereinabove, there is nothing discernible from record which would conclusively prove to the hilt that the assessee had raised a false claim of deduction. In fact, the conduct of the assessee who had in all fairness withdrawn the claim of deduction that was earlier raised by him u/s 35(1)(ii) in his ‘Original’ return of income inspires substantial confidence as regards the genuineness and veracity of the said claim. As observed in CIT Vs. Upendra V. Mithani [2009 (8) TMI 1159 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein the High Court had concurred with the view taken by the Tribunal, that if the assessee gives an explanation which is unproved but not disproved, i.e it is not accepted but circumstances do not lead to the reasonable and positive inference that the assesse’s case is false, then no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be imposed. - Decided in favour of assessee. Order being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing - COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. See case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited [2020 (5) TMI 359 - ITAT MUMBAI]
|