Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 1055 - AT - Income TaxApplicability of provisions of sec. 142A - non rejection of books of accounts - addition u/s 69B - - Reference made to DVO u/s 142A - Held that:- A decided in M/s Legend Estates Pvt Ltd. vs DCIT [2014 (4) TMI 154 - ITAT HYDERABAD] A reference to DVO u/s. 142A can be made only when a requirement is felt by the AO for making such reference. Requirement would arise or could be felt only when there is some material with the AO to show that whatever estimate assessee has shown is not correct or not reliable - The use of word ‘require’ is not superfluous but signifies a definite meaning whereby some preliminary formation of mind by the AO is necessary which requires him to make a reference to the DVO u/s 142A - It can only be during the course of pendency of assessment or reassessment that the AO frame his mind to refer the property to valuation cell of the Department - if there is a basis to think that the assessee may have understated the cost of construction or whatever is declared by him in this regard is not believable - reference to valuation cell u/s. 142A can be made during the course of assessment and reassessment and not for the purpose for initiating assessment – Decided against Revenue. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- In this case, the assessee failed to furnish fully and accurately all particulars of expenditure said to be incurred for the land development. The clarification given by the assessee is not sufficient to substantiate or develop any confidence so as to hold that assessee-company has actually incurred any expenditure in land development. Even if any deduction is claimed b the assessee wrongly but bonafide and no malafide can be attributed, the penalty would not be levied. If there is a deliberate concealment and false/inaccurate return was filed, which was revised after the assessee was exposed of the falsehood, it would attract penalty. Further, where the claim made in the return appears to be ex facie bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment or inaccurate particulars and penalty is to be levied. We may also take note of the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT ], wherein held that the explanation appended to sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act entirely indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing the return. The object behind the enactment of sec.271(1)(c) of the Act read with the Explanations indicate that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue. Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as in the case of prosecution u/s 276C of the Act. In view of this, we have no hesitation in reversing the order of the CIT(A) and restoring that of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided against assessee.
|