9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd promoters. The return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 31.07.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 11,567/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune ('the Assessing Officer') vide order dated 07.01.2014 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 29,67,390/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 29,50,000/- being cash deposits in SB Account treating the same as unexplained cash deposits rejecting the explanation of the assessee that the cash deposits were made out of cash withdrawals through ATM on various dates and also based on the admission of the assessee that to offer the same as income in order to buy peace of mind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before us in the present appeal. 6. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice. 7. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On perusal of the assessment order, it would suggest that disparity between the returned income and assessed income is only on account of following additions made in the assessment :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. It was an admitted position in the instant case that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It was not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee could not be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The revenue argued that submitting an incorrect claim in law for the expenditure on interest would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income. Such cannot be the interpretation of the concerned words. The words are plain and simple. In order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, and both types attempt to reduce the taxable income and, therefore, both types amount to concealment of particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Such contention could not be accepted as the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that, by itself, would not attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If the contention of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
