Case Law Details
Balkrishna Purshottamdas Patel Vs JCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as all the particulars duly furnished by the assessee relating to source of investment, mere rejection of the claim of the assessee cannot invite levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty deleted.
Facts- Penalty for concealing/ furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as per provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the present case has been levied on an addition made to the income of the assessee and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) and the ITAT, relating to the investment in property amounting to Rs.22,85,528/-source of which remained unexplained. The impugned addition was made as per provision of section 69A of the Act.
Conclusion- Held that all particulars relating to the source of investment were furnished by the assessee which were not found to be inaccurate or even incorrect by the Revenue. Even the explanation of the source of investment was not found to be false by the Revenue. It was merely found to be unacceptable since advance was given by assessee to co-owner in preceding year. It is settled law that mere rejection of a claim of the assessee will not invite levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee, in such circumstances, we hold, cannot be charged with having furnished any inaccurate particulars of income or concealed any particulars of income so as to attract levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
