9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA No. 697/SRT/2018 for assessment year 2014-15 ( in case of Shri Vijaysinh P. Solanki), have been taken into consideration for deciding the above appeals en masse. 3. The solitary grievance of assessees in these two appeals, is that ld CIT(A) was erred in confirming the penalty under section 271(1) (c ) of the Income Tax Act. 4. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeals are stated in brief. The assessee before us is an individual and filed his return of income for the assessment year 2014-15, on 14.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 21,40,010/-. The assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny and assessing officer has framed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, on 23.12.2016 by determining total income at Rs. 38,39,760/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee had sold a plot of land in respect of which deduction under section 54B of the Income Tax Act was claimed. As per provisions of section 54B of the Income Tax Act, the assessee was asked to furnish various details, documents, explanations etc, to establish genuineness of agricultural activities undertaken by the assessee or other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. In this respect, ld Counsel submits that assessee is a farmer, and he believed that income by sale of milk is also an agricultural income therefore, he claimed sale of milk, as an agricultural income, by mistake. Taking into account these facts, Learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble' Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts, 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein it was held that making claim in the return of income which is not sustainable in law, would not amount to furnish inaccurate particulars of income and therefore penalty should not be imposed on the assessee. 8. On the other hand, ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue, Ms. Anupama Singla submitted before us that during the assessment proceedings the assessing officer got inquiries conducted to ascertain whether the agriculture activities had been carried out which was prerequisite for making claim under section 54B of the Act. The inquiries conducted revealed that assessee had not carried out any agricultural activities in the last two years and therefore when this fact was confronted to the assessee, he admitted to pay the taxes and withdraw the deduction under section 54B of the Act. The contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the land within 2 years immediately prior to the date of transfer of land. Since, the co-owner i.e. Mayur Mathurdas Patel had not fulfilled the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 54B of the Act, therefore the concerned assessing officer disallowed the claim of Rs. 16,77,758/- u/s 54B of the Act in the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 21.11.2016. In the present case also the facts remaining the same as the assessee is the co-owner and therefore he withdrew the claim u/s 54B of the Act when he was confronted regarding the agriculture activities. The assessing officer also disallowed the income from sale of milk of Rs. 72,000/- which was claimed as agriculture income. The assessing officer levied the penalty of Rs. 3,52,414/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The undisputed facts are that during the assessment proceedings the assessee had withdrawn the claim of deduction voluntarily and had paid the taxes on the long term capital gain (LTCG). The assessee contended before assessing officer that there was no willful incorrect claim under section 54B of the Act. 10. We note that during the year under consideration the assessee has sold a plot of land in respect of which deduction u/s 54B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction under section 54B of the Act. The assessee submitted before assessing officer the documents relating to sale of agricultural land and also stated that he could not produce the documents relating to purchase of agricultural land at other places, as he was having agricultural land at various places. We note that having withdrawn the deduction under section 54B of the Act, the assessee has agreed to pay the taxes alongwith interest and assessee, had in fact, paid the taxes alongwith interest on account of withdrawal of deduction under section 54B of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act stating that withdrawal of deduction under section 54B of the Act, is kind of a furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. We do not agree with the assessing officer, as the assessee had furnished all the details of its deduction under section 54B of the Act in the return of income, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on assessee`s part. It was up to the assessing officer to accept assessee`s claim in the Return of Income or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms; (i) an item of receipt may be suppressed fraudulently; (ii) an item of expenditure may be falsely (or in an exaggerated amount) claimed, 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. We do not agree, 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, in our opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
