Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (6) TMI 921 - ITAT HYDERABAD

2015 (6) TMI 921 - ITAT HYDERABAD - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition under the head "Income from House Property" has been made by the Assessing Officer only by "recomputing the income" - Held that:- Due to an arithmetical mistake in the computation statement filed by the assessee along with its return of income, the impugned addition has been made. This is evident' from the Statement of Taxable income, a copy of which was submitted in the paper book. As can be seen from the said statement, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income for the year under consideration. Further, there is no seized material based on which the additions are made in the assessment.

Disallowance of loss on sale of fixed assets - Held that:- We find from schedule 10 to P&L for the year under consideration, a copy of which is placed in the paper book that "Loss on sale of fixed Assets" for Rs.l0,74,750/- has been shown in it and hence the assessee has not concealed any particulars wit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

section 271(1)(c), for a deemed concealment of income. As a corollary to this legal position, unless it is established that there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars or it is established that, on the facts of the case, concealment of income can be deemed in accordance with the provisions of law, the penalty provisions cannot be invoked at all - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.1717/Hyd/2014 - Dated:- 27-3-2015 - Shri P.M. Jagtap And Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan JJ For .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Act has been completed in assessee s case on 22.12.2006 determining the total income at ₹ 65,60,469 as against the returned loss of ₹ 99,73,735. In the assessment, AO made an addition of ₹ 52,85,744 by recomputing the income under the head Income from House Property. AO also disallowed loss on sale of fixed assets claimed for ₹ 10,74,750/-. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who dismissed the ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ujana Group of Industries during the financial year 2004-05 subsequent to which a notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to the appellant and an assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act was made on 22.12.2006 determining the total income at ₹ 65,60,469 as against the returned loss of ₹ 99,73,735. As can be seen from the assessment order, the additions made are on account of the following: (i) Recomputation of income under the head income from House Property (ii) Disall .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income for the year under consideration. Further, there is no seized material based on which the additions are made in the assessment. As submitted in para No.1 above, the addition under the head Income from House Property has been made by the AO only by recomputing the income . Further, the claim made by the appellant towards loss on sale of fixed assets has been disallowed in the assessment by the AO. These are the only two additions made i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

322 ITR 0158 (S.C). b) An erroneous claim of deduction, which is withdrawn when error is discovered is not concealment of income and penalty cannot be imposed. Reliance is placed on the following case laws: i) CIT v. Sri Saradha Textile Processors Pvt Ltd (2006) 286 ITR 499 (Mad). ii) CIT v. Free Mentle India Television Production Pvt. Ltd (2007) 294 ITR 88 (Del.) c) Where the facts were disclosed but wrong claims for special deduction were made, it was held in the following cases, that it was n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion, the interference that there was deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars in original return cannot be correct, so that the cancellation of penalty was justified . e) In the following cases, the assessee claimed diminution in value of shares as revenue loss and it was held to be capital loss. Assessee disclosed writing off of investments in audit statement. It was held that it is not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. i) CIT v. Gane .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is not leviable. g) In the following cases, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been held not justified where a claim for certain expenditure is disallowed in the assessment. i) Jajoo (JK) v. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 410 (MP) ii) CIT v. Inden Bislers (1999) 240 ITR 943 (Mad) h) In the case of CIT v. Chinni Krishna Chetty (K.R) (2000) 246 ITR 121 (Mad) it was held as under: Mere upward revision of income by the assessing authority does not automatically mean that the assessee concealed income and levy o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the penalty levied of ₹ 22,81,829 u/s 271(1)(c) for the year under consideration . 5. The ld CIT (A) held as follows: As can be seen from the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 1537 r.w.s 153C dated 22/11/2006which has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), the addition of ₹ 52,85,744/- has been made by recomputing the income under the head "Income from House Property". The other addition confirmed is towards disallowance of loss claimed on sale o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion statement filed by the assessee along with its return of income, the impugned addition has been made. This is evident' from the Statement of Taxable income, a copy of which was submitted in the paper book. As can be seen from the said statement, it is clear that the assessee has disclosed all the facts relating to the earning of income from property in the return of income filed. Hence no particulars of income from House Property have been suppressed. The addition of ₹ 52,85,744/- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version