Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 29 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - concealment of income v/s furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - Whether notice issued u/s 274 did not mention specific default on which penalty was sought to be levied? - HELD THAT:- AO failed to consider regarding that there is no escapement of income being which is exemption of special allowance claimed by the assessee are genuine - AO erred in finding that the income of the assessee shown by him in his return of income filed for the assessment year 2012-13 as escaped income. We observed that the exemption was claimed by the assessee on the basis of expert advice of tax professional regarding the special allowance. During the course of reassessment proceedings when the assessee came to known that the exemption was claimed incorrectly the assessee himself withdrew the claim and paid due taxes along with interest amount. We also observed that the CIT(A) has recorded the written submissions filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings which is considered carefully and but in holding the finding of the AO is unjustified. Going through the present facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that concealment of income is quite different from furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. No hesitation on this point to delete the penalty and the addition made. In support, reliance was placed on the judgments referred by the AO and CIT(A) without appreciating that facts of the case are on different facts than that the assessee’s case where the assessee not only provided explanation regarding the source of amount but also explained the reasons for its claim as exempt when the assessee came to know about error in return as per advice of erstwhile tax consultant and the assessee deposited the tax amount along with interest due u/s 234B & 234D. CIT(A) and the AO impose the penalty is unjustifiable. Reliance was placed on the judgments in case of CIT vs. reliance Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] and in case of M/s Rane Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (6) TMI 1298 - ITAT PUNE] where the assessee’s case is similar and identical where no hesitation to delete the penalty by following precedents where the excess claim of deduction was due to bona fide and unintentional mistake. Assessee appeal allowed.
|