Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

The penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 of the said section of the Income Tax Act has been initiated during the course of assessment proceeding against the appellant. Subsequently, the said penalty proceeding was kept in abeyance because of the particular fact that the appeal against the decision of the AO was pending before the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, by and under an order dated 15.12.2004 the said appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO whereupon, an appeal has been preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal but the same was dismissed vide order dated 29.03.2016. As a result, of the dismissal of the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 15.12.2004 the said order attained finality and the penalty proceeding which was kept in abeyance got revived and was finalized by an order dated 27.11.2006 by levying penalty to the tune of Rs. 14,77,77,822/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee which was, in turn, confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before Tribunal.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - The Revenue may or may not agree with this understanding of law of the assessee but the fact that there can be a bona fide view to that effect cannot be ruled out. The explanation for bonafides, at the cost of repetition, needs to be considered in a fair and objective manner and in the light of human probabilities. The assessee’s explanation regarding bonafides of the claim does not suffer from any apparent inconsistencies or factual errors and it is quite in tune with the human probabilities. Since, there is no concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee in not including Rs. 30.79 crores received as arbitration award in its taxable income and thus, the imposition of penalty is not justifiable. Hence, the AO is directed to delete the impugned penalty. - VAN OORD DREDGING AND MARINE CONT RACTORS BV V/s ASSTT. DIT - [2020] 206 TTJ 366 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

Professional services available Audit Management
Tax Lok English Viedo
Tax Lok Hindi Viedo
Check Your Tax Knowledge
Youtube
HR Consulting services

FOR FREE CONDUCTED TOUR OF OUR ON-LINE LIBRARIES WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVE-- CLICK HERE

FOR ANY SUPPORT ON GST/INCOME TAX

Do You Want To Take FREE DEMO Of Our GST/Income Tax Library.