TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant for the assessment year 1996-97. The only question that has arisen in this case is whether the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1(B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Learned counsel for the Revenue has taken us through the relevant provision and it appears on a reading thereof that before penalty can be imposed on the assessee, there are three requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... note was given by the assessee which read as follows: "Dividend Rs. 14,11,930 (UTI)- Rs. 14,10,474 and shares Rs. 1,456) and interest Rs. 15,15,808 (FDRs Rs. 9,89,062, inter-corporation deposit Rs. 57,269, certificate of deposit with banks Rs. 4,46,977, Bank of Baroda Bonds Rs. 1,619, Income-tax Department Rs. 20,890) are claimed as business income chargeable under the head 'Profit and gains of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not a ground to invoke the penalty provision of the statute. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon CIT v. Vidyagauri Natverlal [1999] 238 ITR 91 (Guj). In that case the question that arose was of unexplained cash credit. The Gujarat High Court made a distinction between a wrong claim as opposed to a false claim. In that case, the Assessing Officer needed to make an enquiry as to whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
