Case Law Details

Case Name : Aravind Kumar Agarwal Vs ACIT (OSD) (ITAT Kolkata)
Appeal Number : I.T.A No.1603/Kol/2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 22/07/2020
Related Assessment Year : 2015-16
Courts : All ITAT (7341) ITAT Kolkata (593)

Aravind Kumar Agarwal Vs ACIT(OSD) (ITAT Kolkata)

The issue under consideration is whether Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied in the case where the assessee surrendered the income voluntarily during the course of the assessment?

ITAT states that the law that quantum and penalty proceedings stand on different footing and each and every disallowance/addition in the former does not ipso facto attract the latter penal provision. They keep in mind the very distinction and notice that the assessee has filed all the relevant supporting evidence in support of genuineness of this above-stated long-term capital gains derived during the course of scrutiny. That being the case, ITAT find that such an instance neither amounts to concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271 of the Act. Therefore ITAT delete the impugned penalty.

FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Siliguri dated 29.05.2019 passed in Case No.10/CIT(A)/SLG/2018-19 involving proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961[in short ‘the Act’].
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant lis seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action imposing section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.1,85,764/- pertaining to alleged bogus long-term capital gain of Rs.6,38,778/- adding during the course of assessment framed on 22.09.2017. The Revenue’s case as per both the lower authorities’ detailed discussion is the assessee has been rightly penalized u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act since he himself had surrendered his long-term capital gains claim to be exempt u/s 10(38) as bogus in the above-stated assessment. It therefore emphasizes that the assessee’s said voluntary surrender makes him liable for consequential penalty as well. We see no reason to express our concurrence with the Revenue’s stand. We make it clear that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Reliance Petroproducts’ case 322 ITR 158 (SC) has settled the law that quantum and penalty proceedings stand on different footing and each and every disallowance/addition in the former does not ipso facto attract the latter penal provision. We keep in mind the very distinction and notice that the assessee has filed all the relevant supporting evidence in support of genuineness of this above-stated long-term capital gains derived during the course of scrutiny. That being the case, we find that this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s decision in Smt. Amita Tulsiyan ITA No.1513/Hyd/2018 dated 10.05.2019 holds that such an instance neither amounts to concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271 of the Act. We therefore delete the impugned penalty.

3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

October 2020
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031