9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Even if a wrong claim is made by the assessee that itself does not tantamount to concealment of income. - Decided in favour of assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 38,93,297/- as income from other sources and not from business activities referred u/s 80IB(11a) of the Act, therefore, the penalty was imposed for wrong claim made by the assessee. This proposition is sheltered by the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) and CIT vs Ajaib Singh & Company 253 ITR 630( P &H). While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) observed as under:- "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. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009(9) SCC 589], where Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Hon'ble Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008(13) SCC 369], as also, the decision in Union of India Vs.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of the value of the property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that the explanation must be preceded by a finding as to how and in what manner, the assessee had furnished the particulars of his income. The Court ultimately went on to hold that the element of mens rea was essential. It was only on the point of mens rea that the judgment in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. was upset. In Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inaccurate". It was only the ultimate inference in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra) to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra) was overruled. I am not concerned in the present case with the mens rea. However, I have to only see as to whether in this case, as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate particulars. In Webster's Dictionary, the word "inaccurate" has been defined as:- "not accurate, not exact or correct; not according to truth; erroneous; as an inaccurate statement, copy or transcript". ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
