9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pronouncement and same be quashed. 2. The Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in confirming the Penalty at 200% of the tax sought to be evaded U/s 271(l)(c). Your appellant submits that he had not furnished inaccurate particulars nor concealed the particulars intentionally or deliberately since Revised Computation of Income was filled during the course of assessment proceeding voluntarily. It is therefore submitted that the penalty imposed @ 200% is to be droped. 3. Penalty proceeding U/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act void ab initio as the Notice U/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Income Tax Act 1961 issued on 25/01/2016 reveals that the Ld AO has not deleted the inappropriate words and parts of the notice, whereby it is not clear as to the which default committed by the assessee, i.e. whether it is concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income that the penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act is sought to be levied. 4. Penalty proceeding U/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act void ab initio as, in the Assessment Order, Ld AO has framed the satisfaction to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be any question of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee also contended that there was no conscious concealment or act of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is because, he himself (the assessee) on noticing the excess claim under section 54F of the Act has revised the computation of income before detecting the same by the Revenue and paid the amount of tax. 5. However the learned CIT (A) after considering the submission of the assessee restricted the amount of penalty to the tune of 200% from 300% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded as imposed by the AO by observing as under: 4.4 As regards the merits of imposition of penalty, 1 find that the appellant has claimed exemption u/s.54F at Rs, 89,83,817/- in thecomputation of income enclosed with the return without furnishing any details, Thus, it was not clear as to whether exemption u/s, 54F was claimed for purchase of house or construction of house and how much was the actual investment therein. Only when the Assessing Officer issued questionnaire vide letter dated 07,08.2015, the appellant reduced the exemption u/s, 54F to Rs. 41,92,608/-, From these facts, It is the not fuii in the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontrary, the learned DR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In the present case the penalty has been levied with respect to the addition made on account of excess deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act. As per the AO the assessee has furnished inaccurate particular of income with respect to such excess deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act. Thus the penalty was levied by the AO for Rs. 29,50,170.00/- which was subsequently partly confirmed by the learned CIT (A). 8.1 Regarding the contention of the learned AR for the assessee that there was no specific charge levied by the AO whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particular of income, in this regard we note that the AO has mentioned the specific charge in the penalty order by stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly we hold that, the assessee cannot get the benefit of immunity from the penalty merely there was no specific charge in the penalty notice issued under section 274 of the Act o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow the second controversy before us arises so as to adjudicate whether the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income with respect to such excess deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act. The term inaccurate particular of income has not been defined under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act the Act. However, the meaning of the term inaccurate has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd reported in 189 taxman 322 wherein it was held that the term 'inaccurate' signifies deliberate act or omission on the part of the assessee. As such, the details/information contained in the return of income /financial statements /audit report which are not correct according to truth, and were furnished by the assessee with the dishonest intent shall be treated as inaccurate particulars. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd (supra). We are not concerned in the present case with the mensrea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this case, as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate particulars. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
