9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een concealed by the assessee – relying upon CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] - where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars – a mere wrong claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars - the assessee had made a claim u/s 80IB (10) of the Act which was found to be not allowable - CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have rightly held that the assessee had disclosed all material facts and the revenue had not brought anything on the record that any particulars were not available to the AO – thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld – Decided against revenue. - TAX A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct and levied penalty of ₹ 15,06,750/. For assessment year 200405, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 16.10.2006, framed assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144 of the Act rejecting the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act of ₹ 40,00,000/. Penalty proceedings came to be initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and by an order dated 25.03.2009, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of ₹ 14,35,000/Against the above orders passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by separate orders deleted the penalties. The revenue challenged the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) before the Tribunal, but did not succeed. 4. Mr. V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (Appeals) and by the Tribunal. 5. A perusal of the order of penalty made under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act reveals that the Assessing Officer has merely referred to the facts of the case on account of which, penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act came to be initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has merely observed that despite the fact that show cause notice was served upon the assessee, the assessee had not responded thereto, either by appearing before the Assessing Officer or filing a written reply. The Assessing Officer has, therefore, presumed that the assessee has nothing to say in the matter and has no objection if penalty is lev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, though the fact is that all the developers or builders are claiming such deduction en masse though the lands are owned by the housing cooperative societies. In the above backdrop, the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that there was no concealment on the part of the assessee. He accordingly ordered deletion of the penalty. The Tribunal in the impugned order has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited, 322 ITR 158 (SC) for the proposition that where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. A mere wron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
