9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Even if there was wrong claim, it could be denied by the Assessing Officer. It could be a good case for addition but not for penalty. It was concluded by the Tribunal that the assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars with the intention to conceal income and rather it made a claim on the advise of the chartered accountant which was found to be not correct. Thus, the Tribunal rightly concurred with the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 378 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 4-5-2017 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. RAMENDRA JAIN JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Senior Standing counsel For the Respondent : Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 5,50,74,289/- on account of sales tax subsidy, shown as revenue receipt in the original return was reflected as capital receipt in the revised return and consequently the profit under Section 115JB of the Act was recomputed and revised to ₹ 12,17,38,567/- During the course of assessment proceedings, it was inter alia noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had shown ₹ 65,00,000 /- as other income in the profit and loss account of the power co-generation division of the company. This other income was nothing but interest income received by the assessee. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IA of the Act on this interest income. As the interest income was income from other sources and not profit derived f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.V, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty. Not satisfied with the order, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 24.07.2009, Annexure A.VI, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Hence, the instant appeal by the appellant-revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Admittedly, the assessee company declared income of ₹ 10,93,764/- in its return filed on 29.11.2003. It computed the profit under Section 115JB of the Act at ₹ 9,43,53,675/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 31.03.2004. On scrutiny of the case, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was served upon the assessee on 7.07.2004. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urred with the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- The stand of the assessee is that on the advise of the Chartered Accountant it was claimed by revising the return. There is no dispute to the fact that interest income is not an allowable deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. Even if it is presumed that the claim made by the assessee on the advise of the Chartered Accountant was wrong, still is not a good ground for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act because firstly there should be furnishing of inaccurate particulars and secondly there must be concealment of income. Even if there is a wrong claim, it can de denied b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile dealing with similar issue, it has been recorded by this Court as under:- It was specifically held by the Tribunal that prior to 2003, before the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Pandian Chemical s Vs. CIT , (2003) 262 ITR 278 and CIT Vs. Sterling Foods , (1999) 237 ITR 579, the issue was a debatable one and the assessee had in its return of Income made a mention by giving a note to the computation of income which was filed alongwith the return of income. It was concluded that in such circumstances, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 6. Furthermore, the Hon ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Petro Products Private Limited (2010) 322 ITR 158 had held that mere makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
