9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act") challenging the order dated 20th July, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in ITA No. 504/Del/2009, for the Assessment Year 2001-2002. 2. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in dismissing the revenue's appeal whereby the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 45,40,297/- imposed by the Assessing Officer (in short, "AO") had been deleted. Mr. Sabharwal further relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors and Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 369. 3. In fact, Section 271(1)(c) came to be interpreted by the Apex Court in Union of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. In Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT [2007] 6 SCC 329, thisCourt explained the terms "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars". The Court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), mens rea was necessary, as according to the Court, the word "inaccurate" signified a deliberate act or omission on behalf of the assessee. It went on to hold that clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) provided for a discretionary jurisdiction upon the assessing authority, inasmuch as the amount of penalty could not be less than the amount of tax sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a penalty was a civil liability and, therefore, willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as was the case in the matter of prosecution under Section 276C of the Act. The basic reason why decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT was overruled by this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, was that according to this Court the effect and difference between Section 271(1)(c) and Section 76C of the Act was lost sight of in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT. However, it must be pointed out that in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, no fault was found with the rasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT, where the court explained the meaning of the term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. It was held by the Tribunal in the case of Shobha Trading Company (P) Limited Vs. ITO (1995) 52 ITD 188 (Del.) that penalty for concealment cannot be levied merely because certain deductions, relief or benefits have been denied to the assessee. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (Appeals) and the same is upheld." 6. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the respondent-assessee had made full disclosure and there was neither any concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In fact, both the CIT(A) and Tribunal have found that the justification furnished by the respondent-assessee was bonafide. Consequently, keeping in view the conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
