Case Law Details
Waman Hari Pethe Sons (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Assessee had, infact, furnished true and complete particulars of its income before the AO and it was another matter that the claim filed by the assessee towards excess depreciation being based on the opinion of his advocate was later withdrawn during the course of assessment proceedings taking conservative view to avoid litigation and buy peace. It is well established law that mere making of a claim which did not find favour with the revenue will not automatically lead to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This appeal, filed by the assessee, being ITA No. 2730/Mum/2016 , is directed against appellate order dated 25.01.2016 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”), for assessment year 2011-12, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from penalty order dated 30.09.2014 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called “the AO”) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”) for AY 2011-12.
2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the memo of appeal filed with the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the tribunal”) read as under:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
