9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tribunal was dealing with two appeals, one preferred by the assessee which pertained to assessment year 1996-97 and the other preferred by the revenue, i.e. ITA No. 4507/Delhi/2007 which related to assessment year 1998-99. 3. In the appeal preferred by the assessee, the only issue that emerged for consideration before the tribunal pertained to confirmation of penalty in respect of investments written off. The said claim was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer initiated a penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The amount of investment written off was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the same was affirmed up to the level of the tribunal. 4. In course of penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal that the entire details of the claim were available in the return and it had not shown any false income or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income and hence, the imposition of penalty was unwarranted. The tribunal, as is evident from the order impugned, has held that the investment that was written off was disallowed up to the level of the tribunal and there is no dispute in that regard. The assessee had claimed the loss on account of investments written off which was not allowed by way of deduction. Thus, the assessee had declared the entire material in the return of income and merely a claim of a deduction on account of loss incurred in the capital field as revenue loss was not allowed would not make it liable for penalty fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax authorities, for everything was reflected in the return. 10. The singular question that emanates for consideration whether the finding recorded by the tribunal that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars of the income can be treated as perverse. In this regard, we may profitably reproduce a passage from Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. (supra), wherein the Orissa High Court has opined thus: "15. If in the facts and circumstances of a particular case and on the materials before it, the Tribunal reaches the conclusion that there was no concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, it is a conclusion on facts and no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal in that regard. The expressions "ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... based on no material or is perverse or is based on irrelevant, extraneous or inadmissible considerations or is arrived at by the application of wrong principles of law. Change of perspective in viewing a thing does not transform a question of fact into a question of law. Whether there was concealment or not is, ordinarily, a question of fact. Where a fact-finding body bearing in mind the correct principles comes to the conclusion that the assessee has discharged the onus, it becomes a conclusion of fact. Similarly, whether the explanation offered by the assessee was bona fide or not is a question of fact." 11. In the case at hand, the assessee had filed the return and furnished all particulars. The assessee had explained during the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
