Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Shri Suresh Shivlal Bhasin Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : ITA Nos. 1705 & 1707/Mum/2017
Date of Judgement/Order : 30/11/2018
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Shri Suresh Shivlal Bhasin Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

As regards imposition of penalty on the addition made on account of notional house property income, it goes without saying that in reality the assessee has not earned any income from house property. The Assessing Officer himself has observed that the addition made on account of income from house property is notional. In that view of the matter, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed in respect of addition made on account of notional income from house property.

Penalty cannot be levied on Dis-allowance of Interest Expenditure claimed against Invest Income under bona fide belief

In so far as disallowance of interest expenditure is concerned, as could be seen from the submissions made by the assessee before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has availed of overdraft facility from Dena Bank and out of the funds borrowed from overdraft account investment was made in taxable bonds of RBI as well as fixed deposit. It is further evident from the submissions of the assessee, against the interest income earned from taxable bonds and fixed deposits, which was offered as income, assessee has set off the interest expenditure incurred on account of funds borrowed from the overdraft account. This claim of set off of interest expenditure against interest income has been rejected by the Assessing Officer in course of assessment proceedings. Thus, as could be seen from the facts on record, under a bona fide belief that interest expenditure incurred on the overdraft facility is allowable against the interest income earned by investing the funds borrowed from the overdraft account assessee has claimed the expenditure. This, in our view, neither leads to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income nor concealment of income. Hence, assessee’s explanation that the conditions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not satisfied appears to be plausible. That being the case, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act can be imposed on account of disallowance of interest expenditure.

FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031