SMT. RAGILA V SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1957/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 November 2020AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that disallowance of a claim by the Assessing Officer does not automatically imply that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was therefore set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income which was assessed at a higher amount by the Assessing Officer due to disallowances on housing loan and interest expenses. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of claims by the Assessing Officer is sufficient ground to levy penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC-I”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
For Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Hearing: 15/10/2020Pronounced: 26/11/2020

This is an appeal by the assessee, wherein assessee is aggrieved that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 37, Mumbai (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) has erred in confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) amounting to Rs.1,22,677/- by order dated 11.02.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed the return at a total income of Rs.7,02,113/- which was assessed at Rs.11,99,940/- by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer made disallowance to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of housing loan claimed and Rs. 3,37,498/- on account of interest and other expenses claimed u/s 57. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated by the Assessing Officer and was finally levied as the assessee has Smt. Ragila V. Shah accepted the addition and chose not to appeal. While levying the penalty, the Assessing Officer has stated that it is evident that the assessee has not offered the correct income for taxation. The assessee has also not filed revised return for computation on her own withdrawing the inaccurate claims made by her. The income would have escaped assessment resulting into loss of revenue, if the case had not been selected for scrutiny. Upon assessee’s appeal, learned CIT(A) upheld the penalty. Against the said order, assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

3.

I have heard both the counsel and perused the record. Upon careful consideration, I find that the disallowance for housing loan interest has been done on the ground that assessee has not received the possession certificate. The disallowance on account of interest has been done on the ground that interest bearing funds have been diverted to non/low interest bearing loans.

4.

In my considered opinion, the aforesaid claim of the assessee by no stretch of imagination can be held to be ex facie bogus. If the claim of the assessee duly disclosed is not allowed by the Assessing Officer, the same does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income which makes the assessee liable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This proposition is duly supported by Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC).

5.

Accordingly, in the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent, I set-aside the orders of authorities below and delete the levy of penalty.

Smt. Ragila V. Shah 6. In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules on 26th November, 2020.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →