Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (9) TMI 692

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o him but particulars of income and/or concealment of income, has not been brought on record by the A.O., which is an essential ingredient to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c). A s decided in CIT Versus RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS FVT. LTD. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars - deletion of penalty is thus warranted - in favour of revenue. - I.T.A. No.963 / Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2012 - D. K. TYAGI and Shri T. R. MEENA, JJ. Appellant by: Shri C KMishra, Sr. DR Respondent by: Shri R J Shah .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mpany as per prescribed report in Form No. 10 CCAC was reduced to Rs.179083/- by A.O. and disallowed Rs 101125/- which was reduced in appeal to Rs.14503/-as per CIT Appeals order, but enhanced to Rs.827'88/- as per ITAT order n ITA N0.1921/ABD/2007 dated 22.06.2010. Similarly deduction claimed U/s. 80 IB Rs.6608098/- by assessee as per prescribed report in Form No. 10 CCB was reduced to Rs.207731/- duly confirmed in appeal. The A.O. had initiated penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c)by notice dated 29.12.2006 for either concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee company submitted reply under cover of letter dated 28.01.2008 and 29.01.2008 submitting that there is neither concealment nor in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of income. The A. O. made the addition as he did not consider the claims made by the appellant admissible. He treated the building expenses which were claimed by the appellant as revenue item as capital in nature and accordingly disallowed the expenditure and allowed the depreciation on the capitalised expenses. However, I do not see any finding regarding the fact that any part of the expenditure that was claimed was not genuine or some inaccurate particulars have been furnished related to those expenses. Similarly, the deduction u/s. 80IB and 80HHC were reworked by the A. O. as certain income was not considered as income derived from industrial undertaking for deduction u/s. 80IB. The deduction u/s. 80HHC was also found not in order and w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aw is not leviable on following grounds: a) The assessee is a public limited company. The accounts are duly audited under the Companies Act under the Income-tax Act U/s 44AB duly approved by the Management, Auditors and shareholders. b) The order U/s. 271(1)(c) is based on filing inaccurate particulars of income while the notice is issued on the basis of uncertain satisfaction as to for which default whether for concealment "or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, is not made clear. The assessee company relies on in the case of CIT V/s. Lakhdhir Lalji reported in 85 ITR page 77 (Gujarat). c) Both the claims U/s. 80 HHC and U/s. 80 IB are based on experts reports in prescribed Form as required under the provisions of IT A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Limited v. 340 ITR page 204 CIT V/s. H.P. State Forest Corporation Limited. The Appellant prays that penalties are not leviable on items of disallowable nature much less either concealed or inaccurate particulars of income filed. In the facts of the case as above, penalty of Rs.375023/- be, therefore, deleted. 6. We have perused the assessment order as well as the penalty order and also the appellate order and heard the arguments of both the sides. In this case, three disallowances were made by the A.O. which have been confirmed by ITAT viz. i) disallowance on account of repair expenses on building, ii) disallowance u/s 80-IB and iii) disallowance of deduction u/s 80HHC. The A.O. had simply initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates