9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act challenging cancellation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A).
Summary: Issue 1: Assessment and penalty imposition The respondent, engaged in various business activities, filed a return for the assessment year 2000-2001. The Assessing Officer made additions and disallowed deductions, leading to the imposition of a penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, and the penalty order was challenged before the Tribunal. Issue 2: Disallowance of deductions The assessee claimed statutory deduction under Section 24 of the Act and depreciation. Both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) found the assessee dis-entitled to claim double deduction of depreciation and deduction under Section 24. The Tribunal held that there was no concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars, as it was a bona fide difference of opinion, leading to the deletion of the penalty. Issue 3: Legal interpretation and precedent Referring to the decision in CIT v Reliance Petroproducts, the Court emphasized that for penalty u/s 271(1)(c), there must be concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Court highlighted that the assessee had disclosed all material facts, and the claim being not accepted by the Revenue does not automatically attract the penalty. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision in favor of the respondent was found to be in accordance with the law, with no grounds to overturn it. Therefore, the Appeal challenging the cancellation of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was dismissed.
|
