Income Tax Dept warns public against cash dealings of Rs 2 lakh or more saying that the receiver of the amount will have to cough up an equal amount as penalty.

No concealment penalty just because an inadmissible claim of deduction was raised

Section 271(1)(c), read with section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Disallowance of claim, effect of) - Assessment years 2003-04 to 2009-10 - Assessee-bank was engaged in re-financing of long term loan given by other financial institutions for purchase of residential houses in India - It claimed benefit of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim for deduction on ground that it was not directly engaged in providing long-term finance for construction of purchase of houses in India for residential purpose - Assessing Officer also passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) taking a view that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income - Tribunal set aside penalty order - It was noted that prior to raising claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viii), assessee had written to Director, CBDT and, thereupon, meetings were held wherein it was opined that assessee bank would be eligible for deduction - It was also undisputed that assessee had taken due care and caution to make a specific disclosure in respect of deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viii) in return of income - Whether, on facts, assessee could not be regarded as guilty of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and, thus, impugned penalty order was rightly set aside by Tribunal - Held, yes [Paras 13 and 14] [In favour of assessee]

Refer:[2018] 100 162 (Delhi)

Share This!

No comments:

Post a Comment