SMT. TRUPTI H. SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (3), RAJKOT

This appeal is filed by the assessees against order dated 17.06.2019 passed by the CIT(A)-1, Rajkot for the Assessment Year 2007-08.

The Assessing Officer passed the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 07.03.2016 determining total income the assessee at Rs.3,52,090/-. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act was initiated and the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.1,11,900/- in respect of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving notice. No address has been filed by the assessee. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of submissions reproduced in the assessment order as well as in the order of the CIT(A).

The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order, penalty order and the order of the CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee before the CIT(A) made contention that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied normally for making of claim which is not sustainable in law and thereby relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 323 ITR 158. From the perusal of the assessment order it can be seen that the Assessing Officer has not properly verified the genuineness of two gifts and the claim of cost of improvement as well as brokerage. This finding by the DCIT under Section 263 of the Act reiterate that the assessee has furnished all the relevant material at the time of assessment proceedings and never concealed any inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, the very cause of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not arise. Hence, the penalty does not sustain.