TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acceptable to revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c). CIT v. Ajaib Singh & Co. [2001 (8) TMI 79 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] “that merely because certain expenses claimed by the assessee are disallowed by an authority, it cannot mean that the particulars furnished by the assessee are wrong. Disallowance of an expense per se cannot mean that the assessee has furnished incorrect particulars of its income. Concealment involves penal action. It has to be proved as a conscious Act. It is true that direct evidence may not be available in every case. Yet, it must be proved as a necessary corollary from the facts and circumstances established on the record. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6351/MUM/2012, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the AO on income declared under different head of income and such levy is erroneous in facts and bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its revised return of income on 28.03.2002 disclosing total loss of ₹ 1,08,187/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) made the assessment u/s 143(1)(a) on 26.11.2002. Then he reopened the assessment and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28.08.2008 determining the total income at ₹ 15,08,253/-. In the assessment order, the AO rejected the claim of loss of ₹ 1,08,187/- made by the assessee by considering the compensation received (rental income) as income from house property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as considered the rental income as business income , whereas the AO considered it to be taxable under the head income from house property . In the process the AO disallowed all expenditure including depreciation to the tune of ₹ 20,13,226/-. Thus the Ld. counsel submits that the assessee has neither concealed its income nor filed inaccurate particulars of such income. Therefore, it is pleaded that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) be deleted. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given the citation of the decision B.A. Balasubramanium Bros. Co. v. CIT (SC) relied by him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
