9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.8,78,788/- le vied by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) I.T. Act, 1961. 2.1 The ld CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed taxable income by claiming non allowable expenses. The ld CIT(A) also ignored the fact that the assessee did not utilize the borrowed capital for its business purposes." 2. The only issue for consideration relates to deleting penalty of Rs.8,78,788/- levied under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the assessee filed return of income disclosing income of Rs.6,42,702/-. Assessment was completed under sec. 143(3) on 24th December, 2007 at an income of Rs.30,44,252/- by disallowi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars merely because the assessee had claimed expenditure which has not been accepted by the AO, that by itself would not attract penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158. The learned CIT(A) examined the contention of the assessee in the light of judicial pronouncements. He observed that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars of its income when it furnished the return. There was only difference of opinion on the relevant issue. If the assessee gives an explanation which is unproved but not disproved i.e. i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. The assessee had disclosed all material facts and raised a legal claim, even if it was ultimately found to be legally unacceptable, could not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He therefore, held that there was no case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of his income in respect of claim of deduction of interest amounting to Rs.24,01,550/-. The learned CIT(A) accordingly deleted the addition. 5. None attended on behalf of the assessee. However, the learned Sr. DR strongly supported the order of the AO. 6. We have heard the Ld. Sr. DR and gone through the material available on record. There is no dispute about the fact that entire ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate, not exact or correct, nor according to the truth or erroneous. Where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c ). A 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." 7. If the facts of the case are tested in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) we find that the assessee had furnished all details in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
