The Assessing Officer held that\u00a0 but for the survey, the incorrect claims to exemption under sections\u00a054,\u00a054B\u00a0and\u00a054F\u00a0would have been allowed unnoticed, that the claims were mala fide with intention to evade tax, that the assessees had concealed income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. He levied penalty under section\u00a0271(1)(c)\u00a0which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal deleted the penalty. Consequent to the order of Commissioner (Appeals) the Assessing Officer launched prosecution under sections\u00a0276C\u00a0and\u00a0277\u00a0for wilful attempt to evade tax or penalty.\u00a0 The assessee moved petition before the High court to quash the prosecution proceedings, allowing the petitions the Court held that on the facts there was no suppression of facts and the assessee had originally disclosed the receipt of monies from the sale of property and mere claiming of deduction there was no wilful evasion of tax. The disclosure had been made. Therefore, the fact that merely exemptions from capital gains were claimed under section\u00a054\u00a0or section\u00a054B\u00a0or section\u00a054F\u00a0on the property and investments had not been made, wilful evasion of tax could not be presumed. The Tribunal had found that there was no suppression of facts. Therefore, initiation of prosecution on similar allegations was nothing but a futile exercise. The criminal prosecution on similar grounds would not serve any purpose but only lead to unnecessary harassment. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings initiated were quashed. (AY. 2010-11)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Survey-Capital gains-Penalty deleted-Prosecution quashed. [S. 45, 54B, 54F, 148, 271(1)(c), 277] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28206","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-7kW","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28206","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28206"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28206\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28207,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28206\/revisions\/28207"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28206"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28206"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}