Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2008 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (11) TMI 303 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - huge difference in the rate of sale of the flat - addition made during the course of assessment, which were confirmed by the appellate authority - HELD THAT:- There may be a possibility that the rate of two flats are merged and recorded. In these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the possibility of a wrong entry cannot be ruled out in the present case. Therefore, we hold that the Department has failed to prove the concealment on the part of the assessee without any iota of doubt. As per the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2007 (7) TMI 307 - SUPREME COURT], though the liability may be a civil liability, but cannot be equated with other liability of the payment of tax in the Act. Therefore, for attracting the penalty provision, a strict proof is required and onus to prove the same is on the Department. Since the Department has failed to establish the same and discharge its onus ultimately, we find that the penalty imposed by the Department is not warranted and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, we delete the penalty. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
|