TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... REME Court] - thus, there was no concealment of facts by the assessee in the return of income – there was no justification for the imposition of penalty for disallowing the payment claimed u/s 37(1), since there was full disclosure of expenses so incurred for technical knowhow, genuineness of expenses were not doubted, mere disallowance on the plea of expenses being capital in nature, do not warrant any imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c). Relying upon COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] - for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), there has to be concealment of particulars of income of the assessee and revenue is required to show that assessee must have furnished inaccura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) and assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. It was argued by the learned AR that disallowance made on account of payment to the director was deleted by the Tribunal in its quantum appeal vide order dated 11-7-2012 in ITA No.4278/Mum/2006. With regard to the disallowance of technical knowhow fee, the learned AR drawn our attention to the computation of income filed along with the return, wherein as per Note No.1, it was stated that entire technical knowhow fees was shown as deferred revenue expenditure in the balancesheet amounting to Rs.33,52,500/- and since the entire expenditure has been paid during the year, same was claimed as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act and for these purpose reliance was placed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t mean the details supplied in the Return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. In view of the above, it was contended that for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposition of penalty for disallowing the payment claimed under Section 37(1), since there was full disclosure of expenses so incurred for technical knowhow, genuineness of expenses were not doubted, mere disallowance on the plea of expenses being capital in nature, do not warrant any imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c). 6. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.(supra) has held that for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), there has to be concealment of particulars of income of the assessee and revenue is required to show that assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars in his income. When there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
