Penalties Cannot Be Imposed on the Assessee’s Behaviour Unless Misconduct is proved

The case between Indian Income Tax vs. Dalmia Dyechem Industries: –

It seems that the section 271 1 c states that any kind of penalty can be imposed if it is proved that the person has given any kind of or her income or have shown in false expenditure or false income. This is taken from the 2010 case which was fought against Income Tax and Reliance Petrochemicals and ITR has applied strict penalties on them.

If the report of the case is seen then it shows a simple language that if any such thing is found then it means that the industry has showed in false data and published wrong income figures. This also includes gift tax in India and if any gift tax in India is found to me mismanaged it could lead to a hefty fine from the Income Tax Return Registration.

In this particular case Mr Chhotaray argued that the result of the apex courts must be taken in a different manner. It states that the there is at all no matter of misuse especially when there are many different cases that are looked upon for the purpose of scrutiny.

It says that weather or not a person has showed wrong income or hidden it will be different for different case and these two cases cannot be compared. In this particular case all that we are concerned is that there is no hiding of income or furnishing any amounts done by the assessee. Here online filling itr was also in question and because of the problem in the ITR online filling it could have lead to serious trouble for the accused.

Despite the fact that the Assessee had given intrigue free advances to its sister concerns and that it was denied by the Assessing Officer, the Assessee had tested the same by initiating the procedures which were taken up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal had put aside the request of the Assessing Officer and restored the same back to the Assessing Officer.

Subsequently, the elucidation put by Assessee on the procurements of law, while taking the activities being referred to, can’t be thought to be deceptive, malafide and measuring camouflage of certainties. Indeed, even the Assessing Officer in the request forcing punishment has noticed that business practicality was not demonstrated certain. The Assessing Officer while forcing punishment has not rendered an indisputable finding that there was a dynamic disguise or intentional outfitting of erroneous particulars. These parameters must be satisfied before forcing punishment on the Assessee.

India Gift Tax Issue

Another example of a case was also submitted which was against the Zoom Communication and Commissioner of Income Tax. In this case a clear difference in the facts was presented. In this case the person who was accused has told before the officer that the action of furnishing the revenue was not correct and the entire conclusions that were found out were very debatable.