TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. This issue has been dealt in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has considered the term particulars used in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which would embrace the details of the claim made. The Hon ble Supreme Court stated that where no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars nor expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provisions, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. Hence, in the present case the result of assessing the income either under the head income from other sources or u/s.68 of the Act, the lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led his return of income on 21.01.2017 declaring total income of Rs.20,00,170/- for the assessment year 2016-17. The AO noticed that the assessee had declared an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- under the head income from other sources but assessee failed to provide any details. Hence, the AO treated this amount of Rs.6,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit and taxed the same u/s.68 of the Act. But there is no change in the returned income and assessed income. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO issued show-cause notice dated 10.12.2018 and assessee claimed that she was lending amount to various parties on getting security of jewels and offered this income under income from other sources . The assessee stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income u/s 68 of the Act is taxed on a different footing than income declared from explained sources . Therefore even if the returned income and assessed income are the same as in the present case, still there is tax sought to be evaded . Since Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is levied on the tax sought to be evaded , and not on the difference between the returned income and assessed income, the AO has correctly levied the penalty u/s.271(1)(c). Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that there is no difference between assessed income and returned income. There is simpliciter change of head of income. The assessee declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
