No Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) merely due to quantum addition without fresh verification  

No Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) merely due to quantum addition without making fresh verification during penalty proceedings 

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3299 (2020) (04) ITAT

Important case law relied upon by the parties:
National Textiles Vs. CIT 249 ITR 125.

The issue involved in this case was related to penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

The appellant assessee had incurred interest expenses in the earning of rental income. The penalty was initiated on account of the disallowance in the quantum proceedings of the interest expenses against the impugned rental income.

During the penalty proceedings, the assessee claimed that the interest was paid on the money borrowed which was invested in the impugned property from where he was getting the rental income.

The assessee had also furnished the details of the parties from whom he has borrowed fund which was utilized for the purpose of the investments.

However the Assessing Officer (AO) without verifying the genuineness of the details furnished by the assessee levied the said penalty merely on the ground that such interest expenses was disallowed during the quantum proceedings.

Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee contested it before the CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty

No Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) due to quantum addition without fresh verification

The ITAT stated that as the penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings, the addition made during the assessment proceedings does  not  authorize  the  AO  ipso  facto  to  levy  the  penalty  under  section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As such as also held by the jurisdictional High Court the AO is under the obligation to carry out the necessary verification before reaching to the conclusion that the assessee has furnished any inaccurate particular of income or concealed the particulars of income

Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the ground of appeal and deleted the penalty.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App not disproportionate – Delhi High Court
• High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA
• Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash not owner who came up to own it
• Lokayukta Police not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005 – SC
• Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST