| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
July 16, 2009 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile 306 ITR 277 (SC) on 271 (1) (c) penalty distinguished
The assessee claimed set off of capital loss against profits of business, which was disallowed and penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) for ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars’ was imposed. The CIT (A) and ITAT deleted the penalty by holding that set off was wrongly claimed on account of counsel’s negligence and penalty was not leviable. The department argued before the High Court that even if the set-off of capital loss against business profits was by negligence or mistake, the fact remains that the particulars of income furnished were not correct and willful concealment not being an essential requirement for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)( c) as held by the Supreme Court in UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277, penalty could not be deleted. HELD, rejecting the plea:
The judgment in Dharmendra Textile cannot be read as laying down that in every case where particulars of income are inaccurate, penalty must follow. What has been laid down is that qualitative difference between criminal liability u/s 276C and penalty u/s 271(1) ( c) had to be kept in mind and approach adopted to the trial of a criminal case need not be adopted while considering the levy of penalty. Even so, the concept of penalty has not undergone change by virtue of the said judgment. Penalty is imposed only when there is some element of deliberate default and not a mere mistake. In view of the finding that the furnishing of inaccurate particulars was simply a mistake and not a deliberate attempt to evade tax, penalty was not leviable.
Related Posts:
- CIT vs. Chetak Enterprises Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court) It is manifest that all properties, movable and immovable (including actionable claims) belonging to or vested in a company at the date of its registration would vest in the company as incorporated under the Act. In other words, the property acquired by a promoter can be claimed by the company…
- Punjab Cricket Association vs. ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) The assessee is regularly following commercial activity by commercially exploiting its property and rights to hold matches and thereby earning huge income, hence the said activity can not be said to be incidental activity rather the commercial exploitation of the match is one of the main activity of the assessee,…
- CST vs. Crescendo Associates (Bombay High Court) The service of maintenance, management or repair, rendered by any person to any other person is a taxable service but in the context and backdrop in which the issue arises before us, we do not think that a taxable service is rendered. The Revenue does not wish to take into…
- Ventura Textiles Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Concealment of particulars of income was not the charge against the appellant, the charge being furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As discussed above, it is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach…
- Amazonite Steel Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Calcutta High Court) The failure to do the above is nothing short of being an act of highhandedness. Such actions of the authorities is an obloquy and reprehensible. No explanation has been provided for the same either in the affidavits filed in the earlier writ petitions or by counsel appearing on behalf of…
- Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) If the nature of services rendered have a proximate nexus with the extraction of production of mineral oils, it would be outside the ambit of the definition of FTS. In the instant case, since the nature of services rendered by the Petitioner gets excluded from the definition of “FTS”, in…
Recent Comments