Case Law Details
Hardik Mahendrabhai Patel Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad held that making of incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable.
Facts- The assessee filed his return of income on 29.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs.11,58,840/-. AO vide Assessment Order dated 20.12.2017 made addition of Rs.5,62,893/- in respect of gross receipt as per Form No.26AS. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.54,01 0/- on account of vehicle repairing expenses and addition of 10,69,021/- thereby disallowing the claim u/s. 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act as employee’s contribution credited in employees’ account of respective funds. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.87,436/- thereby disallowing the payment specified in Section 40A(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.5,20,951/- in respect of all the additions for concealment of income.
Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Conclusion- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. held that making of incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under the same does not sustain.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
