2017 (4) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing a hospital and has filed its e-return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 declaring a total loss of Rs. 38,08,548. The return filed by the assessee was processed initially under section 143(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as "the Act") and after due process, assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee-company in its schedule 16 of the profit and loss account has debited an amount of Rs. 38,46,611 towards interest paid to APSFC, by issuing a show-cause notice, the details for the above payments were called for. On going through the statement of account, it is observed that during the financial year .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The only claim made by the assessee is excessive and which is under bona fide belief, therefore, the penalty provisions cannot be attracted. 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental representative supported the order passed by the authorities below. 6. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The only issue before us for consideration is whether the assessee either concealed the income or filed inaccurate particulars in respect of Rs. 18,77,631. The assessee is in the business of running hospitals. The assessee-company has to pay an interest of Rs. 38,46,611 to APSFC. The assessee actually paid an amount of Rs. 19,68,980, however, it has claimed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to APSFC. Therefore, the assessee filed all the details before the Assessing Officer and under bona fide belief, he has claimed excess relief which is not permissible in accordance with law. Thus, penalty provisions should not be attracted to the assessee. 8. The honourable Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) has considered the scope of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and observed that "a mere making of 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 inaccurate particulars. The assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X