Sumit Chatterjee v. ITO (2023) 103 ITR 48 (SN)(Ahd)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c):Penalty-Concealment -Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income-Claimed exemption on bogus long-term capital gain in original return-Taxed as income from other sources in return filed in response to Sec. 148-Penalty cannot be levied as no addition to income of the assessee-Explained source, mode and manner of earning of income.[S. 10(38), 45 ,148]

The assessee had filed return of income claiming long-term capital gain as exempted u/s. 10(38). Subsequently, in response to such notice under section 148, the assessee filed his return of income treating the long-term capital gain as income from other sources. The AO levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal deleted the additions by placing reliance on DCIT vs. Kulwant Sing reported in 104 taxmann.com 340 wherein it has been held that penalty cannot be levied as no tax sought to be evaded since there is no addition to income of the assessee as per Explanation 4 and the assessee duly explained source, mode and manner of earning of income in reported in return of income. (AY.)