9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false - no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act - no error in the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the Department. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly imposed. He submits that the Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Liberty India versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Supra) and the order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We have considered the submissions of Shri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the Department has made following observations in paragraph 6: "6. Heard parties with reference to material on record and case law brought to our notice. The appellant has made a claim of deduction u/s 80 IB of the Act on the basis of two different opinions available at the relevant time with regard to allowability of deduction under section 80 IB of the Act on the amounts of incentive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction, they must 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 the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars." It has been noted in the order of the Tribunal that there was a difference of opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
