TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee at that time was selected for the limited scrutiny vide notice dated 13th September 2016 but there was not issued any notices under section 142(1) of the Act by the Revenue. The revenue authority was not even reached to the any prima facie conclusion that the amount of capital gain was not fully offered in the return of income. But the assessee voluntary revised the computation of income when issue came to his notice and paid the due taxes. Therefore it is assumed that, though the assessee in original return committed mistake in furnishing inaccurate amount of capital gain but the same is bona-fide mistake which was done away filing revised computation. We also note that AO in assessment framed under section 143(3) made the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad, dated 25/01/2019 arising in the matter of penalty order passed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as the Act ) relevant to the Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO for Rs. 14,25,383/- under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and engaged in the activity of consultancy services. The assessee in the year under consideration has fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore there cannot be any penalty to be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the assessee on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. However, the AO rejected the contention of the assessee by holding that the revised return filed by the assessee was invalid and therefore no credence could be given to such return of income. According to the AO, the particulars furnished by the assessee in the original return of income were not true but erroneous. Thus the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income with respect to the capital gain added to the total income of the assessee. Thus the AO levied the penalty for Rs. 14,25,383/- being hundred percent of the amount of tax sought to evaded by the assessee unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amed under section 143(3) of the Act based on the original return of income filed and additional capital gain disclosed in the revised return of income was added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO held that capital gain disclosed in the original return of income was not as per the truth which amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levied the penalty of Rs. 14,25,383/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act which came to be confirmed by the learned CIT-A. 9.1. The case of the learned AR for the assessee before us is that the assessee has not furnished any inaccurate of particular of income. As such the assessee voluntary before any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Shreenath Share Consultancy vs. DCIT reported in 1 SOT 544 where, the assessee in the assessment proceeding was asked to establish the genuineness of amount credited in the books of account and to produce the party from whom amount was credited. The assessee instead of producing creditor accepted the amount credited as its income by filing revised computation of income. Accordingly the assessment was concluded on higher amount of income and penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed. On appeal the coordinate bench of this tribunal held the amount of income was voluntary offered by the assessee before detection of the same by the AO. Thus, the penalty cannot be levied. The relevant finding of the coordinate bench reads as under: T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tial evidences should be present in the particular case. Unless, the characters of inaccurate particulars of income as discussed above are present in any particular case, the penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be attracted. 9.5. Thus, in view above discussion and considering the facts in totality, in our considered view the provisions of 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be attracted in the given facts and circumstances. Hence we set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty levied by him under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
