Question And Answer
Subject: 271(1)c, Concealment penalty
Querist: Omkar Shinde
Answered by:
Tags: , ,
Date: July 17, 2022
Query asked by Omkar Shinde

What are the consequences of 271(1)C ? also how to prove and how to solve 271 1c ?

File Uploaded: Not Available

Answer given by

Depends on facts . Burden is on the assesseee to prove that there was no concealment . It is desirable to file a detail submission on facts to demonstrate that the claim is bonafide . In Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306/253 CTR 1/77 DTR 153/211 Taxman 40 (SC) the Court held that inadvertent, human error, bonafide mistake, Levy of penalty is not justified .In CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2011) 220 Taxation 278/(2010) 36 DTR 449/322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322/230 CTR 320 (SC) the Court held that mere making of a claim not maintainable in law, will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Merely because the assessee claimed of deduction of interest expenditure has not been accepted by the Revenue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not attracted.

Disclaimer: This article is only for general information and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers desiring legal advice should consult with an experienced professional to understand the current law and how it may apply to the facts of their case. Neither the author nor and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any inaccurate or incomplete information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. No part of this document should be distributed or copied (except for personal, non-commercial use) without express written permission of

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *