Case Law Details
Sanjay Chandulal Upadhyay Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Introduction: In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad delivered a significant verdict in the case of Sanjay Chandulal Upadhyay vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO). The crux of the matter revolved around whether a bonafide mistake in computing income tax amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The ITAT’s decision is pivotal as it pertains to the deletion of a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background of the Case: The assessee initially filed the income tax return on 31.01.2014, declaring a total income of Rs. 5,60,737/-. Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed on 31.03.2015, disclosing a total income of Rs. 9,93,733/-. The assessment was concluded under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, resulting in a total income of Rs. 11,80,970/-.
2. Penalty Initiation: During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed expenses related to the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) amounting to Rs. 2,08,037/-. This expense was attributed to the entire land. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 6,20,210/- under the “Capital Gain” category. Subsequently, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated, alleging the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. A notice under Section 174 read with Section 271(1)(c) was issued on 25.05.2016, and a penalty of Rs. 1,92,000/- was imposed.
Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
