Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when errors are voluntarily corrected during assessment. ...
Income Tax : A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misrepor...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unsustainable as 54F exemption failed due to builder delay, not taxpayer’s fault. Full dis...
Income Tax : Understand why an income-tax penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the charge isn't specified as concealment or inaccurate...
Income Tax : Learn how taxpayers can defer income tax penalty proceedings when quantum additions are under appeal. Understand legal grounds and...
Income Tax : The Committee recommends that the scope of Section 273B should be suitably enlarged to provide that penalty for concealment of inc...
Income Tax : The case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of pen...
Income Tax : The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. T...
Income Tax : The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimate...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded ₹95.81 lakh commission disallowance, holding that non-response to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justi...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling cl...
Income Tax : Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) inter alia provides that w.e.f. 1 st April, 2017, the Assessing Officer, on an...
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 the assessing officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)( c ) .
The assessee’s quantum appeal has been admitted by the High Court. If the assessee succeeds in the quantum proceedings, it would not even be necessary to consider the s. 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings and so no prejudice has been caused to the department qua the penalty proceedings.
We are of the opinion, given the peculiar facts of this case, that the imposition of penalty on the assessee is not justified. We are satisfied that the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bona fide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars.
Accrual (or otherwise) of an income (or expenditure) is matter of fact, to be decided separately for each case, on the basis of the assessment of the obtaining facts and circumstances. The same cannot be stated as an accounting policy – which by its very nature is to be applied uniformly,
The only condition which was required to be fulfilled for getting the immunity, after the search proceedings got over, was that the assessee had to pay the tax together with interest in respect of such undisclosed income upto the date of payment.
The contention of the assessee that Audit Reports and minutes of meeting of Board of Directors were enough to prove the genuineness of the transactions in the case under consideration was unacceptable. There is no doubt that Tax Audit Report is an important document, but it cannot take place of the evidence required for claiming a deduction.
It is settled law that suspicion howsoever strong, it cannot take place of actual evidence and, hence, the contention of the revenue that assessee was in possession of cash throughout the period of six assessment years has to be rejected.
In the present case, it is an admitted position where the appellant had not furnished the return within time allotted to him under sub sections (1) and (2) and therefore, his case clearly falls within the provision of section 139 (4). Section 139 (5) merely stipulates that it is applicable to any person who has furnished the return under sub sections (1) or (2). In the present case, therefore, if the appellant had filed the return in time, and thereafter had filed a rectified return, he could be permitted to do so under the said provision. Therefore, from the aforesaid provisions it can be seen that the Legislature in its wisdom had intended to give the benefits of filing a revised return only to those persons who fall within the four corners of section 139 sub sections (1) and (2) of the said Act. If the legislature had intended to also give the same benefits to an assessee who had not furnished the return within time, it would have said so in sub clause (5). The very fact that sub clause 4 is not referred to in sub clause (5) clearly indicates the intention of the legislature.
A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word “particulars” used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the details of the claim made.
It is now settled law that in order to sustain a penalty under section 271(1)(c) the department must establish that the receipt of the amount in dispute constitutes income of the assessee and part from the falsity of the explanation given by the assessee, the department must have before it cogent material or evidence from which it can be inferred that the assessee has consciously concealed the particulars of his income or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of such income.
