Case Law Details
Bandana Bahuguna Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT observe that it is not the case of the Revenue that the Assessee has acted deliberately in defiance of law, or is guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acts in conscious disregard of its obligation and therefore in our considered view, mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, would not, ipso facto, amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the Assessee and would, therefore, not automatically result in a penalty order against the Assessee’ in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd 322 ITR 158 wherein it was held “Merely because the Assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.”
5.2 Hence on the aforesaid analyzations, the penalty under challenge is not sustainable, consequently we are inclined to delete the penalty imposed by the ld. Commissioner on the enhanced income made by him.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 24.01.2019 impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-15, Delhi (in short ‘ld. Commissioner’) u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2010-11.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
