Case Law Details
Kiritkumar Fakirchand Mehta Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Phrase furnishing ‘inaccurate particular‘ of incomer has not been defined under the provision of Income Tax Act. However, we note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd reported in 189 taxman 322 has discussed the term inaccurate particular by as “the word ‘particulars’ must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous”. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, it has to be tested whether the detail furnished in the return of income is incorrect or erroneous or falls. In other words the element of consciousness in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income coupled with circumstantial 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.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
The captioned appeal has been filed 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.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
