Section 54F of the Income-tax Act are benevolent provisions and therefore, require liberal interpretation
In the case of Raj Kumar Bhutani v/s ITO, New Delhi [ITA No. 145/Del/2016], Delhi Tribunal held that provisions of section 54F of the Income-tax Act are benevolent provisions and therefore, require liberal interpretation. Thus, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not levied on the account that the assessee has not been able to deposit the sales consideration within time although the entire tax computed by Assessing Officer was paid by him.
Further, Tribunal relied the ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro-Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) which clearly state that “mere making of the claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars relating to income of the assessee”. Further, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “merely because assessee had claimed expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c)”.
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act relates to if the Assessing Officer or CIT(A) or PCIT or CIT in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.
The copy of the order us as under:
