9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... false and as the assessee had claimed the deduction of an expenditure treating it be capital in nature, it is appropriate to refer to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein held 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. Thus the income tax authorities erred in imposing the penalty and the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the imposition of penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 42 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 19-11-2015 - Soumitra Pal And Mir Dara She ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the CIT(A) which was dismissed. Still aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which according to Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior advocate for the appellant, went unattended so far as the assessee is concerned and there was no decision on merits. Incidentally in the meantime, the Assessing Officer had passed an order under Section 271(1)(c) imposing a penalty of ₹ 30,43,036 by holding as under: The words inaccurate particulars would cover both falsity in final figure as also constituent element, which are inaccurate in some specific or definite respect, whether in constituent or subordinate items of income or end result. Therefore, any concealment or inaccuracy in partic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was a capital receipt and not a revenue income. These facts indicate that the receipt of ₹ 52,90,499/- had not been hidden from the Department. It is therefore cannot be said that such amount was concealed or hidden from the Department. The claim made by the appellant that such receipt is a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt is always a claim and such claim may be correct or incorrect. To conclude that having made a claim, such claim is concealment or a submission of inaccurate particulars of income would be a wrong conclusion. Accordingly, after carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that a claim cannot be defined or interpreted as concealment or filing inaccurate particulars of inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Had it been the case of capital receipt in the mind of the assessee it should not have been adjusted with the revenue item. Had this case not been scrutinized u/s 143(3) the assessee could have taken the benefit and such deduction would have been allowed. We, therefore, conclude that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars and concealed the particulars of its income by claiming a wrong and false deduction in the computation knowing that the amount earned by it was a revenue receipt. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the order of the A.O. The order passed by the Tribunal is the subject matter of this instant appeal. Mr. Khaitan, relying on the computation of income, annexed to the paper book, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As noted, the assessee had mentioned the figure, claimed as deduction, with the said explanation. Since the figure is undisputed, it was upto the income tax authorities to accept or not to accept explanation. The Tribunal did not accept the explanation in support of the claim. The question is whether non-acceptance of a claim can be said to be a concealment. In a case where claim is made it is for the authorities to decide. It may or may not accept the claim. In the instant case, as the sum claimed as deduction is undisputed, it cannot be said that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Since there is no finding that the factual details furnished by the assessee in its return were inaccurate or erroneous or false and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts [supra], followed by the High Court in CIT Central II, Kolkata v. M/s. M.K. Shah Exports Ltd., the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted. So far as the judgment relied on by the respondent is concerned, in our view, it is not applicable to the case in hand as therein the son, being one of the partners, had admitted that he had authored some of the papers which were found at the time of search. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is thus set aside and quashed. Accordingly, we hold that the income tax authorities erred in imposing the penalty and the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
