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 : Tribunal held that reassessment beyond three years was not permissible where alleged escaped income was only ₹38 lakh. Since sta...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty was not justified where all relevant facts were disclosed in the return of income, audit report, an...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of a penalty after finding that the show-cause notice failed to specify the applicable limb of Sect...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that unsecured loan additions could not be sustained where the assessee furnished confirmations, bank statemen...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT held that a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot survive without the Assessing Officer recor...
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...
Thus obviously, it is only on account of deeming provisions of section 50C, the AO has made the addition by adopting the sale consideration of Rs.5, 19,77,000/-, being the value adopted for the purpose of stamp valuation. The revenue has also not shown as to how the assessee could be held to have actually received this amount which is in excess of the amount of Rs.2,51,50,000/-.
Having heard the submissions of both the sides and on due consideration of the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the transaction in respect of the share trading was duly disclosed at the time of filing of the return. Some of the income was shown as long-tern capital gain and part of the income was also shown as speculative business in shares/scripts trading.
The issue pertains to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). The revenue authorities had imposed penalty on the ground that deduction under section 80HHC of the Act was wrongly claimed. The Tribunal however, deleted such penalty. The Tribunal noted that tax liability against the assessee was confirmed on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Ravindranathan Nair, 295 ITR 228. The Tribunal noted that such decision was not available when the assessee filed the return. On such basis, the Tribunal was prompted to delete the penalty.
Voluntarily means out of free will without any compulsion. When the assessee concealed incriminating material in the form of transactions in the aforesaid account of the two parties, surrender cannot held to be voluntarily. Surrender of income after the department has collected incriminating material with regard to the income so disclosed, cannot be voluntary surrender, because it was made under the constraint of exposure to adverse action by the Department.
Mere mistake in making of a claim in the return of income would not ipso facto reflect concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The wrong claim of depreciation in the present case cannot be said to be made with an intention to evade taxes in as much as even after the disallowance of depreciation, the resultant income of the assessee remains a loss. In fact, the assessee had pointed out before the Assessing Officer that it has been incurring losses since the year 2003 due to the market forces. Considering the entirety of the circumstances, in our view, the impugned disallowance on account of depreciation is a mistake, and does not invite the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
From the documents on record, it can be seen that part of the penalty was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). However, with respect to the rest, the same was deleted. The Tribunal concurred with such view of CIT (Appeals). Several additions were struck down in the assessment proceeding itself and were sent for reconsideration. With respect to disallowance of deduction under section 80IA of the Act, the authorities held that the claim cannot be stated to be a wrong claim. Relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158, such penalty was deleted.
There can be no concealment or non-disclosure, as the assessee had made a complete disclosure in the IT return and offered the surrendered amount for the purposes of tax and therefore no penalty under s. 271(1)(c) could be levied. The words ‘in the course of any proceedings under this Act’ in Sec. 271(1)(c ) of the Act are prefaced by the satisfaction of the AO or the CIT(A).
In the present case, the AO had levied penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is not under dispute that the assessee had claimed wrong depreciation on account of additions made in the machinery and factory building accounts, which has been surrendered by the assessee to buy peace of mind. The explanation had been submitted during the assessment proceedings as well as in the penalty proceedings.
Once in a particular trust, some default came to the notice of a trustee managing its affairs and the same trustee is also managing the affairs of other trust then, if the trustee of the second trust voluntarily comes forward before the department and discloses material facts, which have been duly accepted by the department, then it cannot be said that assessee’s conduct was not bona fide or voluntary. It can be said to be a case of concealment only when income comes to the notice of assessee but he still withholds the same from disclosing to the department.
The grievance of the revenue is that the mistake ought to have been rectified by filing a revised return of income. The Tribunal held that the time to file a revised return had expired. In any event, it is not disputed that it was a bonafide mistake on the part of the respondent-assessee. In that view of the matter, imposition of penalty was not warranted.
