M/S YADAV EXHIBITORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessee disclosed the rental income through a revised computation and paid taxes, it cannot be said that inaccurate particulars were furnished or income was concealed. Therefore, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to include rental income in its original return of income. However, it later filed a revised computation of income during assessment proceedings, declaring the rental income and deducting TDS. The Assessing Officer made an addition for the un-declared rent and levied a penalty.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when rental income is disclosed through a revised computation during assessment proceedings, and whether this constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN
ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, A.M. This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of learned CIT(A)-28, New Delhi vide order dated 8.11.2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal as under:- On the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower authorities have 1) erred in holding that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of rental income. The appellant during the course of assessment proceedings, before 2) detection by the Assessing Officer having realized the computational error, having filed a revised Computation of Income, the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are not applicable at all. It is contended that non-disclosure of the impugned income was only a 3) bona fide error while preparing and compiling the Statement of Total Income and hence there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(l)(c) of the Act. That the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to 4) one another.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the AO made an addition of Rs. 7,41,581/- for the rent not included in the return of income. Accordingly, the penalty was levied which was confirmed by the learned CIT(A).
3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. There is no dispute that the assessee has not declared the rental income in the return of the income but the same was declared through revised computation of income during assessment proceedings cannot be denied. There is a finding vide para 2.3 of the learned CIT(A) that there is no dispute as regards the disclosure of the rental income. The assessee has also deducted the TDS which has been claimed in return of income. The only allegation is that as per the learned CIT(A) that full disclosure has not been made by the assessee. In this regard, there is no dispute infact the disclosure has been made by the assessee and there is no concealment of income. Since the assessee having paid the taxes and through revised computation and explanation. The assessee has submitted that he is having the rental income of Rs. 7,41,581/-. In this regard, it cannot be said that assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In such circumstances and facts of the case, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied. The penalty so levied is directed to be cancelled.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this day 05.10.2017.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026