TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities and Revenue has to prove that the claim by the assessee was not genuine or was inflated to reduce its tax liability. Before us, no material has been brought on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the explanations and submissions made by the assessee were false. Before us, Revenue has also not brought on record any binding contrary decision in its support. We are of the view that in the present case no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable and therefore we direct its deletion. Thus this ground of Assessee is allowed and in the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 1421, 1422, 1423/Ahd/2011 Assessment Year 2007-08 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2014 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi and Shri Kul Bharat, JJ. Assessee by: Smt Ur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evised return of income, AO was of the view that it was not declared originally by the assessee. AO was of the view that assessee was forced to file a revised return only because the transaction in the property had been detected by the Department and because the assessee was questioned in this regard. He was therefore of the view that Assessee had tried to conceal a part of the taxable income by filing inaccurate particulars to the extent of ₹ 12,25,000/- being the capital gains and therefore levied penalty of ₹ 4,12,335/- U/s 271(1)(c) vide penalty order dated 29.6.2010. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 23. 3. 2011 upheld the penalty levied by the AO. Aggrieved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... naccurate particulars of income or had filed inaccurate particulars. The Ld AR also placed reliance on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Ashok Raj Nath (2013) 33 Taxmann. com 538 (Del) and the decision in the case of Smt Sudhaben Parikh (ITA No 831/A/2011 order dtd 5.8.2014. She therefore submitted that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) be deleted. The Ld DR on the other hand took us through the findings of AO and Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the original return of income was not in time, the revised return of the Assessee was not a valid return and further the assessee had disclosed the capital gains only after it was detected by the Revenue Department. He thus supported the order of AO and Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fide. In these circumstances there appeared no basis for imposition of penalty on the ground that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the penalty. It is well settled that the parameters of judging the justification for addition made in the assessment case of the assessee is different from the penalty imposed on account of concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars of income and that certain disallowance/addition could legally be made in the assessment proceeding on the preponderance of probabilities, but no penalty could be imposed u/s 27l(1)(c) of the Act on the preponderance of probabilities and Revenue has to prove that the claim by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
