Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

No Penalty for making untenable Claim on Professional advice

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2017 taxguru.in 254
Case Name
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Smt. Anita Kumaran (Madras High Court)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement


In the instant case, what has emerged is that  the Assessee, having realised that the expenditure claimed towards travelling under Section 57 of the Act was not tenable, offered the amounts expended to be added to her income and, accordingly, paid the requisite tax and interest upon the same. In our opinion, this was not a case, where, the Assessee could be said to have either concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars of her income.

. It was, essentially, a case, where, an untenable claim for deduction of travel expenditure under Section 57 of the Act had been made and that too based on the advise of a professional, i.e., an Accountant.

 In our view, the Tribunal has appreciated these aspects of the matter and come to the conclusion that the matter in issue would not come within the scope of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars.

EXTRACT OF THE JUDGMENT

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

T.C.(A)Nos.139 to 141 of 2017:

2. These appeals are preferred by the Revenue as against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’), dated 19.06.2015.

3. By virtue of the impugned judgment, a common order was passed qua Assessment Years (A.Y.s) 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.