9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 519 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s.271(1)(c) - Addition u/s 69 - unexplained investment - addition with respect to investment made during the year only could be made - HELD THAT - Source of investment made in immoveable property was furnished by the assessee as invested by Sh.Rashmikant C. Patel. The same has not been found to be false or untrue by the Revenue. Even particulars pertaining to the explanation of the assessee as to why payment was made by the other coowner has not been found to be false by the Revenue. The assesses explanation of the payment made by the other co-owner on account of advance given by the assessee we find is not disputed by the Revenue with respect to the factum of advance given by the assessee. The only reason for rejecting the explanation is that it was found unacceptable since advance was given in preceding year. Therefore clearly all particulars relating to the source of investment were furnished by the assessee which were not found to be inaccurate or even incorrect by the Revenue. Even the explanation of the source of investment was not found to be false by the Revenue. As merely found to be unacceptable since advance was given by assessee to co-owner in preceding year. It is settled law that mere rejection of a claim of the assessee will not invite levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The assessee in such circumstances we hold cannot be charged with having furnished any inaccurate particulars of income or concealed any particulars of income so as to attract levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee appeal allowed.
Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income related to unexplained investment in property. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11. The penalty was imposed on an addition made to the income of the assessee, relating to an investment in property amounting to Rs.22,85,528, the source of which was deemed unexplained under section 69A of the Act. 2. The assessee contended that the source of investment had been duly explained and substantiated during the proceedings. It was argued that the investment was made out of bank accounts of co-owners, including the assessee. The explanation provided was that the amount in question was advanced by the assessee to one of the co-owners, and the payment was made through banking channels, which was supported by evidence. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that since the entire source of investment was explained and no falsehood was found in the particulars provided, there was no basis for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Revenue, however, relied on the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that the source of investment remained unexplained, leading to the imposition of the penalty. 4. The ITAT examined the details of the investment in the property, where the assessee's purported share was 50%. The Assessing Officer added Rs.44 lakhs to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment, as the source of this amount was not substantiated. The assessee had explained the source of the entire investment, with only Rs.32,82,538 being invested during the impugned year. 5. The ITAT upheld the addition of Rs.22,85,528 as unexplained investment, as the assessee failed to substantiate the source of this specific amount during the relevant year. It was noted that while the explanation for the investment made in earlier years was accepted, the source of the investment during the year under consideration was not adequately proven. 6. The ITAT concluded that all particulars related to the source of investment were furnished by the assessee, and none were found to be inaccurate or false by the Revenue. The rejection of the explanation was based on the timing of the advance given by the assessee to the co-owner in the preceding year, rendering it unacceptable. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deemed unwarranted, and it was directed to be deleted. 7. In light of the above analysis, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty of Rs. 7,10,597 was ordered to be deleted.
|
