Prima-facie, according to the provisions of section 194C r.w. definition given of “work” under the explanation to section 194C, the case of the assessee has to be accepted that assessee could be under bonafide belief for non-deduction of tax from the type of payments upon which it has been held that assessee is liable to deduct tax at source. Mere acceptance by the assessee of the addition does not make entitle the department to levy concealment penalty. In this case, is no allegation can be imposed upon the assessee to say that did not furnish all the particulars or it has disclosed inaccurate particulars so as to say that assessee is liable for concealment penalty. Keeping in view the entirety of facts and also reasonable belief of the assessee that it is not entitled for deduction of tax on the payments made to him by it as the same were excluded from the definition of “work” by the Explanation to section 194C, we are of the opinion that levy of concealment penalty in the present case is not justified and deserves to be deleted.
Mere acceptance by assessee of addition not entitles department to levy concealment penalty
Case Law Details
- TaxGuru Citation
- 2015 taxguru.in 162
- Case Name
- IGL Gemstones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Mumbai
Upgrade to Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.






