9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot accurate, not according to the truth or not exact depiction of the taxable income. No such eventuality in the instant matter exists. The Commissioner of Income Tax as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal after examining the entire record arrived at the conclusion that first return submitted by assessee Udaipur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. was a bonafide error and that was immediately rectified by submitting a revised return. In this factual background we do not find any substantial question of law that may demand adjudication by us by entertaining an appeal as per provisions of Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - Decided in favour of assesse. - D B Income Tax Appeal No. 105/2013 - - - Dated:- 1-5-2015 - Govind Mathu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur while cancelling the penalty arrived at the conclusion that the claim of deduction under Section 80-P(2)(d) of the Act of 1961 was not with any ulterior motive, hence a revised return was filed, as such, the action of the assessee does not fall in the category of concealment or furnishing inaccurate income. An appeal preferred by the revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also came to be dismissed by judgment dated 21.1.2013. Before us, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the revenue is that the the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the assessee at the first instance claimed deduction by concealing taxab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim for the expenditure on interest, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of the income. As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word particular is a detail or details (in plural sense); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word particulars used in the section 271(1)(c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. It is an admitted position in the present case that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It is not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The learned counsel argued that subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he liability would arise. In Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint CIT (2007) 6 SCC 329, this court explained the terms concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars . The court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c), mens rea was necessary, as according to the court, the word inaccurate signified a deliberate act or omission on behalf of the assessee. It went on to hold that clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) provided for a discretionary jurisdiction upon the assessing authority, inasmuch as the amount of penalty could not be less than the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of such concealment of particulars of income, but it may not exceed three times thereof. It was pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was the case in the matter of prosecution under section 276C of the Act. The basic reason why decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint CIT was overruled by this court in Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors, was that according to this court the effect and difference between section 271(1)(c) and section 276C of the Act was lost sight of in the case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint CIT However, it must be pointed out that in Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors, no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint CIT, where the court explained the meaning of the terms conceal and inaccurate . It was only the ultimate inference in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint CIT to the effect that mens rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 80-P(2)(d) of the Act of 1961 but immediately on knowing about its non-applicability a revised return was filed disclosing accurate income. Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 it is required to be seen as to whether the assessee has concealed the income or the details supplied by him in return were found incorrect, erroneous, not accurate, not according to the truth or not exact depiction of the taxable income. No such eventuality in the instant matter exists. The Commissioner of Income Tax as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal after examining the entire record arrived at the conclusion that first return submitted by assessee Udaipur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. was a bonafide error and that was immediately rectified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
