TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Shri J. P. Bairagra For the Respondent : Shri Shishir Srivastava ORDER Per P. M. Jagtap, A. M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 13, Mumbai dated 30-08-2010 whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 16,50,000/- imposed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of textile manufacturing. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 18-11-2003 declaring total loss of Rs. 1,13,12,996/-. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide an order dated 24-2-2006 read with rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act, the total income of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Guj) held that Penalty under S.2871(1) -Concealment-Disclosure of receipts in Part III of return- Not sufficient to avoid penalty- Mere fact that some figure or particulars have been disclosed by itself cannot take out the case from the purview of furnishing inaccurate particulars- whether the particulars furnished by assessee are inaccurate, and whether the particulars are inaccurate or incorrect to his knowledge or whether the particulars furnished are true and correct are all questions which require an inquiry into the facts and consideration of material on record before arriving at the conclusion whether the penalty is to be impose or not-process of inquiry into the correctness of particulars furnished by assessee cannot be closed at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessee has submitted that the action of the A.O. in treating the warehouse rental income as income from house property instead of business income actually did not result in any addition to the total income. In this regard, he invited our attention to the assessment order dated 24-2-2006 passed by the A.O. which clearly shows that as a result of change in head of income in respect of warehouse rent, such income amounting to Rs. 65,01,328/- was reduced from the total income and addition only to the extent of Rs. 45,50,932/- was instead made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the rental income under the head "income from house property" after allowing deduction u/s 24A of the Act to the extent of Rs. 19,50,398/-. The cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
