9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missing an appeal preferred by the assessee. The facts and circumstances briefly stated are as follows:- The appellant Shri Gourab Goyenka, an individual, filed his Income Tax Return for the Assessment year 2007-08 claiming deduction of Rs. 8, 00,000.00 (Rupees Eight Lakh only) allegedly paid by him on account of interest. His case was selected for scrutiny. Appropriate notice was issued. After a few dates fixed by the assessing officer, the Appellant appeared through his authorised representative and confessed to have made a mistake in claiming the aforesaid deduction. He submitted a revised return and paid the applicable Tax. The revenue however considered that it was a case of intentional and deliberate attempt on the part of the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tax on such revised return was duly paid by the Appellant during the proceeding itself. Learned Advocate for the Appellant cited a decision reported in (2010) 322 I.T.R 158 (S.C.) (Commissioner of Income Tax- Versus- Reliance Petro Products Private Limited), in support of his contention. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below:- "A glance at the provisions of section 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word "particulars" used in section 271 (1) (c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He added that had the case not been picked up for scrutiny the petitioner would have succeeded in evading a huge amount of Tax. The decision referred to by the Appellant has no application to the present case. We have considered the rival submissions and are of the opinion that the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs- Reliance Petro- Products Private Limited does not apply to this case for the following reasons. The assessee in this case admittedly furnished inaccurate particulars and sought to avoid liability to pay tax on that basis. It was not a bona fide mistake. The assessee did not establish by any cogent evidence that inaccurate particulars were furnished accidentally or by mistake. Deduction was claimed knowing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
