By Ashok Dhere, Jagdish D. Shah, Chartered Accountants
fiogf49gjkf0d
New Page 1
(Full texts of the following Tribunal decisions are available
at the Society’s office on written request. For members desiring that the
Society mails a copy to them, Rs.30 per decision will be charged for
photocopying and postage.)
16 Nasu Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
ITAT ‘I’ Bench, Mumbai
Before K. C. Singhal (JM) and
D. K. Srivastava (AM)
ITA Nos. 1160 and 1161/Mum./2006
A.Ys. : 2000-01 and 2001-02. Decided on : 21-1-2008
Counsels for assessee/revenue : Jayesh Dadia/Ashima Gupta
S. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Penalty for
concealment of income — Claim for deduction denied resulting into higher
assessed income — Whether AO justified in imposing penalty — Held, No.
Per D. K. Srivastava :
Facts :
The assessee’s claim for deduction of Rs.5 lacs towards
diminution in the value of investment was disallowed by the AO and confirmed in
appeal by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal.
In response to the show-cause notice with reference to the
penalty u/s.271(1)(c), the assessee contended that full facts necessary for the
assessment were disclosed in the return of income filed. Therefore, it did not
amount to concealment of income. However, the AO levied the penalty which was
confirmed by the CIT(A).
Held :
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished all the
relevant particulars in its return of income. Thus, the charge of furnishing of
inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee was not established. According
to it, simply because the Departmental authorities had not accepted the claim of
the assessee or the assessee had lost appeals filed against the orders of the
Departmental authorities, dismissing the claim of the assessee, cannot ipso
facto lead to the establishment of charge of furnishing of any inaccurate
particulars of income. Accordingly, the penalty levied was cancelled by the
Tribunal.
