TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32,155/- imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A)? 2. Having heard learned counsel Ms. Paurami Sheth for the revenue and having examined the material on record with her assistance, it could be noticed that the respondent, who is engaged in the business of publication of newspaper, certain trading activities, securities, sales of electricity etc., filed return for the assessment year 2000-2001, declaring its income of ₹ 28,52,590/-. 3. Return was taken in scrutiny assessment and the Assessing Officer made certain additions and also disallowed certain deductions. He also issued demand notice for penalty. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department regarding allowability of the claim, it was justified in deleting the penalty imposed by both the authorities. 8. It would be profitable to refer to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT v Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158. In the matter before the Apex Court, the assessee disputed the disallowance in the quantum appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) did not allow certain deductions as per law, however, in absence of any material to indicate, the conduct of the assessee was not bona fide who, in fact, had disclosed all material facts. The Court had deleted penalty by holding thus: It was pointed out that unless the wording directly covered the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The learned counsel argued that submitting an incorrect claim in law for the expenditure on interest would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income . We do not think that such can be the interpretation of the concerned words. The words are plain and simple. In order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009 (9) SCC 589], wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me in its Return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 9. As the Tribunal appreciated the case of the respondent asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
