9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve that there is a mala fide intention on the part of the assessee. The main issue seems to be bona fide difference in the interpretation of law and therefore it cannot be said that the details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Therefore, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - TAX APPEAL NO. 1437 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2016 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M.R. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate for the revenue contended that the Tribunal committed an error in reversing the findings of both the authorities inasmuch as the penalty was imposed for concealment of particulars of income. He submitted that the assessee was liable to penalty as the assessee did not disclose the correct income and therefore the order of the Tribunal setting aside the penalty is required to be reversed. 4. Mr. J.P. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the the assesee submitted that the Tribunal has observed that the addition was made because of the bonafide difference in the interpretation of law. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that any details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and that a mere making of the claim which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee and that such claim in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. 5.1 The Tribunal in para 9 of the impugned order has observed as under: 9. We have heard the rival submissions and persued the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We find that during the year under appeal the assessee had earned interest income of ₹ 1,23,73,944/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
