Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c)

Save Share

This query is : Resolved

Shruti Mishra (Querist)

11 December 2012 The assessing officer, appeal & ITAT i.e at all levels, income u/s 68 has been added to the declared income of the assesee..

this is done without appreciating & considering the facts of the case..

A notice u/s 143 (3) also has been issued for reassesment..

Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) has been levied. is the contention of the A.O correct in imposing liabilty... ??

If NO , then can u provide some case laws which stand by the same...

Soumitra Basu

Soumitra Basu (Expert)

12 December 2012 there are lot of case laws in this respect. the ratio of supreme court in Reliance Petro Product is relevant.

Shruti Mishra

Shruti Mishra (Querist)

13 December 2012 The case stands good... but here the judgement wrt concealment of income given by ITAT is not favorable.. they havent considered the submissions made in the client's support.

Soumitra Basu

Soumitra Basu (Expert)

13 December 2012 YOU CAN TAKE THE PLEA THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY PENALTY FOR DEEMED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND NO AMOUNT HAS BEEN CONCEALED.

You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now