9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income. As decided in CIT Versus RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS FVT. LTD.[2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] a mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee - no question of law arises in the present appeal as the revenue was unable to show that the assessee had intentionally not furnished correct particulars or the claim made was bad in law - in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 121 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 17-9-2012 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL J. MR. RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short the CIT(A) ]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 30.3.2011 (Annexure A-III) confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 17.11.2011 (Annexure A-IV) allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the present appeal by the revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the quantum addition in the case of the assessee had been sustained by the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e head Foreign Exchange Fluctuation and had claimed gross debit amount of Rs. 97,58,615/- and credit amount of Rs. 12,43,625/- resulting in loss of Rs. 85,16,025/- on account of forward contracts. The said forward contracts had expired during the financial year 2003-04 but were booked in the financial year 2004-05 relating to the assessment year in question, i.e. 2005-06. The quantum of loss was, however, not disputed by the revenue. The rejection of claim was held not to be intentionally furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the income. 7. The Tribunal while holding that the assessee was not liable for penalty had recorded as under:- 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le in law, by itself, will not amount of furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. 6. The assessee had made a claim of loss on account of losses arising on a maturity of the forward contract, which in fact matured during the preceding year i.e. assessment year 2004-05 but were booked as expenditure during the year under consideration on the bank advice received for the aforesaid forward contracts. The said claim being rejected by the Assessing Officer as being not relating to the year under consideration cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
