Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (9) TMI 600 - Income Tax
Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - difference between the returned income (loss) and income(loss) as per computation - Addition made for not furnishing the documentary evidence regarding the value of property and other expenses incurred - addition for filing inaccurate particulars of income - additions qua capital gain and difference between the ITR vis a vis computation of income, by holding “that the act of the Assessee was deliberate act to furnish the inaccurate particulars of income, which lead to evade the income" - HELD THAT:- Almost all the relevant details, may not be in the form of documents specifically qua expenditures incurred, otherwise available before the Assessing Officer for consideration.
As decided in Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] held that "a meremaking of the claim, which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to inaccurate particulars.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, as the Assessee had already closed down its business and therefore, could not file the part documents as required by the AO, however, from the documents produced, it is apparently clear that required details with regard to the purchase price/value of the property was available before the authorities belowand even also we find the claim made by the Assessee as bona fide and therefore cannot be termed as dishonest or mala fide, hence we are of the considered view that in facts and circumstances and the documents available on record as stated above, no penalty is leviable . Even otherwise wealso do not find any material/reason or justification for levy of penalty and affirmation thereof. Consequently, the penalty under challenge is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.