9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red opinion, assessee should not be visited with the rigors of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By no stretch of imagination can making an incorrect claim tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. See CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.[2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] and CIT vs Dharampal Prem Chand [2010 (9) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.3777/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2014 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, JJ. For The Appellant : Sh. Niren Gupta, CA For The Respondent : S h. Shameer Sharma, CIT(DR) ORDER PER SHAMIM YAH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Head Office funds for payments made to creditors of Silvassa Branch also including other branches. In fact, it was observed that the assessee maintained this banking facility for making centralized payments from the Head Office to creditors of all other branches. The assessee debited ₹ 1,03,19,091/- in the profit and loss account of Head Office, GB Road, New Delhi as interest expenses on secured and unsecured loans together with processing fees. These interest expenses were not apportioned to different units. 3.1 Assessing Officer opined that since funds were required by all the branches for meeting their fund requirement and it was a gross error on the part of the assessee to book all its interest expenses in the head office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecords. We find that section 271(1)(c) postulates imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. In this case we find that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has been levied for reduction in the amount eligible for rebate u/s. 80IB. It has been the case of the Assessing Officer that assessee has been maintaining OD facility and the same is kept recorded at the head office. While the payments for all the units is made through the OD amount but the entire interest expenditure is booked at the head office. In this manner, it is the revenue allegation that assessee has been able to inflate the profit for increased claim of exemption u/s. 80IB and thus exaggerated claim has been made. 8. Now we find that assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. Amount (current year) Amount (previous year 1 Partners capital A 161,231,330.09 86,618,522,97 2 Secured loan (Syndicate Bank) B 141,933,766.57 26,370,631.91 3 Unsecured loans B 32,262,202.29 30,039,455.44 Total 335,427,298.95 143,028,610.32 8.2 From the above ld. Counsel of the assessee has contended that assessee had sufficient amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. 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 incorre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able issue and affirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Delhi High Court held that the view of the Tribunal was justified and dismissed the departmental appeal. (iii) The Apex Court decision rendered by a larger Bench comprising of three of their Lordships in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa in 83 ITR 26 wherein it was held that An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
