TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. - I.T.A. No. 107/Asr/2020 - - - Dated:- 22-9-2022 - DR. M. L. MEENA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE , JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.10.2020 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Amritsar, in respect of the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Learned AO erred in imposing penalty of Rs. 39,504/- being addition made on credit summation made by the assessee. The Learned AO completely ignores the facts submitted by the assessee and takes a different view. 2. There is mere a difference of opinion between the assessee and the AO. Merely difference of opinion does not construed that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of return. Rather the subject matter is debatable. So, the question of levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise at all. Further, the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Amritsar, has also dismissed the same and upheld the decision made by Assessing Officer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenses. During the year the assessee had maintained the following bank accounts as proprietor in which cash credits were made as under: Name of the Bank Account no. Amount Rs. Yes bank, Mall Road, Amritsar CA 005183800001847 43,48,500/- P S Bank, Parag Dass, Amritsar CC 04891300001119 P SBank, Parag Dass, Amritsar CA/1119 4,000/- Loan a/c with P S bank, Amritsar 04891200000012 1,00,000/- P S Bank, Parag Dass, Amritsar C A 881 23,28,316/- Accordingly, Rs. 56,76,816/- was taken as the turnover of the appellant and assessment was completed by Ld AO applying NP rate of 8% as applied u/s 44 A.D. of the Act on the gross turnover of Rs. 66,76,816/- which came to Rs. 5,34,145/- as against Rs. 1, 82,S 70/- declared in the original return of income. The impugned penalty of 39,504/- has been levied u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cash deposited, Raipur 3,00,000/- 24 . 09.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 5,00,000/- 24 . 09.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 40,000/- 27 . 09.2010 Chq withdrawal, Self, Asr 8,50,000/- 28.09.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 4,99,500/- 28.09.2010 Chq withdrawal, Self, Asr 5,00,000/- 07.10.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 1,50,000/- 12.10.2010 Chq withdrawal, Self, Asr 1,50,000/- 16.10.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 50,000/- 15 11.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 5,00,000/- 29.11.2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not made on a single day and, thus, it could not be said that assessee had failed to furnish complete particulars. Even otherwise, revenue had not come out with clear case of suppression of turnover and, penalty had been imposed merely on basis of enhancement of estimated income where impugned penalty would not sustain. 7. In the case of CIT, Chennai vs. P. Roses, the Hon ble Madras High Court observed vide para6 and 7 as under:- 6. Though the Assessing Officer invoked penalty under Section 27(1)(c) of the Act and stated that the assessee failed to furnish complete details from bank statement, on going through the materials placed before this Court, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has subsequently found that the said deposit was made for the period commencing from 01.04.2004 to 29.03.2005. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer himself has found that the said deposit was not made on a single day, in our considered view, it cannot be said that the assessee had failed to furnish complete particulars. The Tribunal has categorically found that in the return, the assessee had shown the income on estimate basis at Rs. 1,99,440/- and such estimation of income was enhanced by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. A glance at this provision would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Present is not the case of concealment of the income. That is not the case of the Revenue either. However, the learned counsel for the Revenue suggested that by making incorrect claim for the expenditure on interest, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of the income. As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word 'particular' is a detail or details (in plural sense); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word 'particulars' used in Section 271(1)(c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. It is an admitted position in the present case that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It is not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the term 'inaccurate particulars' was not defined anywhere in the Act and, therefore, it was held that furnishing of an assessment of the value of the property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that the explanation must be preceded by a finding as to how and in what manner, the assessee had furnished the particulars of his income. The Court ultimately went on to hold that the element of mens rea was essential. It was only on the point of mens rea that the judgment in Dilip N. Shroff (supra) was upset. In Dharamendra Textile Processors (supra) after quoting from Section 271 extensively and also considering Section 271(1)(c), the Court came to the conclusion that since Section 271(1)(c) indicated the element of strict liability on the assessee for the concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return, there was no necessity of mens rea. The Court went on to hold that the objective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
