Penalty deleted as there was no deliberate concealment by assessee
Penalty deleted as there was no deliberate concealment by assessee
A search u/s 132 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was carried out at assessee's residence, and assessee's income was assessed at Rs.4,09,430. CIT(A) partly allowed assessee's quantum appeal. No further appeal was preferred. Thereafter ITO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (of Income Tax Act, 1961). CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. ITAT deleted penalty and held that there was no deliberate concealment by assessee and the addition confirmed was only on basis of estimate was based on the municipal ratable value.-501193
1. Assessee is an individual and a search proceedings u/s 132 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was carried out at his residence at Surat. During the course of search certain documents were found and seized. Notice u/s 153A (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was issued and served on assessee. In response to the notice assessee furnished the return of income showing total income of Rs.86,080/-.Assessee has offered Rs.98,082/- as additional income in the return filed in response to the notice u/s 153A(a) (of Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessment u/s 143(3) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) r.w.s. 153A (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was framed after making certain additions and returned income of the assessee shown as per his return of income. Income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.4,09,430/-. In the quantum appeal before CIT(A) appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. No further appeal of quantum addition confirmed by CIT(A) was preferred before the Tribunal. Thereafter the ITO, Wd-8(2), Surat passed order u/s 271(1)(c) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) levying penalty of Rs.1,01,483/- on the additions sustained by ld. CIT(A).
2. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (of Income Tax Act, 1961).
3. On appeal, the ITAT held as under:
"The AO further estimated this income at Rs.27,500/- and finally ld. CIT(A) reduced the addition from Rs.27,500/- to Rs.1,900/- . Certainly there was no deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee and the addition confirmed is only on the basis of estimate arrived at by taking value from other sources, which in this case was the municipal ratable value and certainly such type of addition do not come under the clutches of section 271(1)(c) (of Income Tax Act, 1961). We, therefore, delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) calculated on the sustained concealed income of Rs.1,900/-.The facts of the case of assessee are quite similar to the facts take up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. supra) as the assessee made a wrong claim of short term capital loss against the business income. Assessee had made only a claim which was found to be legally not acceptable. However, assessee has truly disclosed all material facts. Therefore, as there are no suppression of facts, we are of the view that in the light of various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court as discussed above and in view of our discussion levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) on wrong claim by the assessee was not justified and, therefore, we delete the same. The grounds of assessee are allowed.”
Case Reference - Shri Jayvadan Ramniklal Kapadia, Vs. Income-tax Officer Wd-8(2)
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ''C" BENCH - AHMEDABAD
Before S/Shri Rajpal Yadav, JM, & Manish Borad, AM.
IT(SS)A No.408/Ahd/2013
(Asst. Year: 2001-02)
×
