Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 974 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition as agriculture income - Held that:- It is pertinent to keep in mind that a person has been claiming agriculture income in the past and in subsequent years and having agriculture land, then the addition to his income for not showing exact details of agriculture income can be justified, but it cannot be said that claim made was false. It could be appreciated that a particular quantity of land can generate an income from agriculture activity. Such income could be estimated if land holding is there. The AO failed to bring any evidence on record which can exhibit that this claim was false and the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars with regard to this claim. Addition on difference of date mentioned in the vouchers and entered into computer a negative cash balance has occurred. This was result of a wrong date mentioned at the time of entry in the software. Otherwise, this addition itself should not have been made in the income of the assessee. The AO again did not prove that a false assertion was made by the assessee. Assessee has purchased capital assets in which he has made certain improvement. Cost of this improvement was not allowed to the assessee while computing the capital gain. The AO has alleged that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars for visiting the assessee with penalty. But he failed to demonstrate which particular was inaccurate. It is a claim made by the assessee, which cannot be substantiated with documentary evidence, therefore, it was disallowed. But how the claim was inaccurate, is not discernible. Thus, no penalty is imposable on this count also. Salary income addition - as per the assessee, he has disclosed the income as per Form no.16. The assessee was of the opinion that the expenditure i.e. constituency allowance, office expenditure are exempt being Member of Parliament. He harboured a belief that his salary income is also exempt - Held that:- To our mind the assessee failed to give any plausible explanation for non-inclusion of his salary as Member of Parliament. There cannot be any reason to habour such a belief, more so, it was not brought our notice that this was the first year of receipt of salary as an Member of Parliament. Therefore, the ld.AO was justified in visiting the assessee with penalty qua the addition of salary income amount - Appeal decided partly in favour of assessee
|