9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 271 (1) (c). As decided in C.I.T., Ahmedabad Versus Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] it was up to the authorities to accept assessee's claim in the Return or not & merely because he had claimed the expenditure not acceptable to the Revenue will not attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - There is no finding to show that the details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be incorrect, erroneous or false in the present case - in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 733 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 16-10-2012 - Sunil Ambwani, And Aditya Nath Mittal, JJ. 1. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal Senior Advocate, assisted by Ashok Kumar for the appellant. 2. This Income Tax Appeal under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal in quantum appeal, filed by the assessee in ITA No. 203/Agr/2006, for the Assessment Year 2002-03 vide order dated 27.02.2009. The relevant portion of the finding of the ITAT in quantum appeal is quoted as under:- 5.10. Each of the factors, thus, as found by the Revenue, i.e. non-allowability of interest, absence of liability, no actual issue of capital toward losses, dominion, etc., we find as correctly so. The issue stands further examined from all the applicable angles, even as explained and enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Siddheswar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd Vs. CIT (Supra). The same unmistakably point to the entire impugned sum of Rs.90.23 lacs as representing the assesee s income, so that the same stands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f computation of total income in accordance with law, it was the duty, to compute the total income in accordance with law on the basis of particulars filed by the assessee. It could not thus be said that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. There is no finding that the explanation furnished by the assessee was found to be false. The furnished by the assessee was found to be bonafide explanation in the sense that the AO himself did not disallow such amount in the earlier years, as well as in subsequent years, and thus the explanation of the assessee could not be doubted. The Tribunal held that the explanation of the assessee was bonafide and penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) was not leviable in accordance with Explana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [(2007) 6 SCC 329], where the Court explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and inaccurate". It was only the ultimate inference in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Anr to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Anr. was overruled. 17 We are not concerned in the present case with the mens rea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this case, as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate particulars. In Webster's Dictionary, the word "inaccurate" has been defined as:- "not accurate, not exact or correct; not according to truth; erroneous; as an inaccur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
