9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars - 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) - The CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1) ( c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer because in the present case also all the informations were given by the assessee in the return of income, so the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income – Decided against Revenue. - ITA Nos. 11 & 12/Jodh/2012, ITA Nos. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unting to Rs. 1,15,621/- and confirmed the balance disallowance of Rs. 21,96,970/-. The assessee went in second appeal before ITAT and vide its order dated 06-08-2007 in ITA No. 404/JDPR/2007, the ITAT restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer determined the income at Rs. 24,43,974/- after disallowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 21,96,970/-. The assessee again carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who disallowed the entire claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) of the Act amounting to Rs. 23,12,411/- and thus made enhancement of income by Rs. 1,15,621/-. The Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee requested the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petro Product (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158. 2.5 The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the penalty by observing that all the particulars in respect of the claim u/s 80P(2)(e) of the Act were available in the return of income and the mere disallowance of the same could not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and that there was neither a bogus claim nor a patently wrong claim by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) accordingly deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 2.6 Now the Department is in appeal. 2.7 The ld. DR strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer while the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voked. By no stretch of imagination can making an incorrect claim tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed by the assessee, because that is the only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. To attract penalty, the details supplied in the return must not be accurate, not exact or correct, not 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, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
