9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of section 271(1) (c) of the Act would not be attracted. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was wholly justified in holding that there was nothing to indicate that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income warranting imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. See Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Appeal No. 919 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2017 - MR. HARSHA DEVANI AND MR. A.S. SUPEHIA, JJ. For The Appellant : Mrs Mauna M Bhatt, Advocate ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. The appellant revenue in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejection of statutory claim wherein the relevant facts were already part of the record. Placing heavy reliance on the quantum developments, the Assessing Officer treated the disallowance as a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and by an order dated 12.11.2014 imposed penalty of ₹ 25,00,000/-. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer and deleted the penalty. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, but did not succeed. 5. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, assailed the impugned order by placing reliance upon the reasoning adopted by the Assessing Officer in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said that any particulars were concealed or were misrepresented before the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee had made a claim as per its understanding of the law by disclosing all relevant particulars thereof and such claim was finally found to be legally unsustainable. Therefore, the penalty could not be levied on the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC) . 7. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has recorded that there is no discussion in the penalty order that the assessee has not placed on record all necessary facts for raising its claim for deduction of bad and doubtful debts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the assessing officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature. 9. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that merely making of a claim which was not accepted or not acceptable to the Revenue would not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars so as to attract the provisions of section 271(1) (c) of the Act. In the facts of the present case, the entire penalty order is based upon the facts as placed by the assessee on the record. Thus, merely because the assessee had made a claim which came to be disallowed, the provisions of section 271(1) (c) of the Act would not be attracted. Under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
