9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the Revenue is that this is a clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which the assessee has done with the aim to evade payment of tax. Before we discuss the cases relied on by the parties, we would like to mention that the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of income and has made a claim for deduction. Hence, the assessee has made a bonafide legal claim which cannot be said to be fallacious or flippant and malafide. This fact has not been disputed by the Revenue. Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that in case a valid claim based on law is made by the assessee after disclosing full and true facts, and the same is rejected and addition is made qua that amount, it would not tantamount to either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income automatically - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 3848/Del /2013 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2016 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Ms. Anima Bernwal, Sr. DR For The Respondent : Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv. Shri Tarun Pandey, Adv ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for approval at the time of claim. After approval on 19.9.2008, the assessee was having no option to reduce the claim by revising the tax return because the last date for filing revised return u/s 139(5) lapsed on 31.3.2008. The ld. AR further contended that from the certificate of DSIR it is amply clear taht it was informed to tax department. Assessee offered addition in income during the assessment proceedings based on approval of expenses by DSIR which was accepted by the AO without any modification. In view of the above, the ld. AR submitted that the allegation of the AO is baseless. The ld. AR relied on a catena of decisions including the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of HCIL Vs. Arrpl Triveni [JV] Vs. ACIT [2011] 16 Taxmann 384 [Del], CIT Vs. Vamchampigons and Agro Product 284 ITR 408, CIT VS. Dharampal Premchand Ltd [2011] 329 ITR 572 and CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd [2010] 189 Taxmann 322 [SC]. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty and arrived at his conclusion by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxman must be fair and objective. This subject has been a matter of great controversy. Finally, after referring to the decisions in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs JCIT Another, 291 ITR 519, Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as well as Union of India vs Rajasthan Spg. Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd, 322 ITR 158, has held as under: A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word particulars used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate parti culars. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and true facts, and the same is rejected and addition is made qua that amount, it would not tantamount to either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income automatically. The Revenue is bound to establish its case which falls under either of the two conditions laid in section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue has relied on various decisions 8. The first decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the ld. DR in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts, has already been discussed by us which, in our opinion, supports the case of the assessee because it has been held therein that making an incorrect claim cannot by any stretch of imagination tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. There is no finding by the Revenue that the details supplied by the assessee in its return are incorrect or erroneous or false. The assessee has made a claim which was not found to be sustainable in law and quantum addition has been made. So, it would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Court specifically rejected the Revenue s contention that submitting an incorrect claim in law for the expenditure on interest would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
