9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls. She had stated that she had reasonable grounds to hold the view that she was entitled to deduction under section 54F, as she had done everything under her control and invested the consideration for a residential house. Although the explanation could not be substantiated, the explanation could not be said to be lacking in bona fide. It is also seen that the assessee had filed return for the assessment year 09-10 in July 2009 whereas the house was to be reconstructed within the outer limit by January 2011. Thus, the assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as at the time of filing return of income she had no idea that the house she was investing in will not get completed within the stipulated time - On the facts of the case, a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is not made out - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.-6796/Del/2015 And Cross Objection 87/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2019 - SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh. Shiv Mahajan, CA, Ms. Jyoti Saxena, CA For The Revenue : Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr.DR ORDER PER BENCH: The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it was a clear case of filing of inaccurate particulars because the amount which had been confirmed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) had not been spent within a period of 3 years from the date of transfer of the capital asset and the house under construction was not fit for habitation even during the course of assessment proceedings. It was prayed that the penalty deleted be restored. 4. In response, the Ld. Authorised Representative placed extensive reliance on the findings of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) while deleting the impugned penalty. 5. The Ld. AR also submitted that the CO was not being pressed. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the penalty has been imposed on the quantum disallowance which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the ground that the quantum was not spent within three years from the date of transfer of the capital asset. Since the assessee has not preferred any appeal against the quantum disallowance, as confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A), the same has attained finality. However, in the case of CIT vs. Sadarmal Kothari reported in 302 ITR 286 (Mad), the question raised before the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings and the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angle. The statute requires a satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer. He is required to arrive at a satisfaction so as to show that there is primary evidence to establish that the assessee had concealed the amount or furnished inaccurate particulars and this onus is to be discharged by the Department. While considering whether the assessee has been able to discharge his burden the Assessing Officer should not begin with the presumption that he is guilty. Since the burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceedings, a finding in the assessment proceedings that a particular receipt is income cannot automatically be adopted, though a finding in the assessment proceedings constitutes good evidence in the penalty proceedings. In the penalty proceedings the authorities must consider the matter afresh as the question has to be considered from a different angle. It is important to keep in mind the fundamental legal proposition that Assessment proceedings are not conclusive. Assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct. Findings in Assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the revenue either. However, the counsel for the revenue suggested that by making an incorrect claim for the expenditure on interest, the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The court observed that it had to only see as to whether in that case, as a matter of fact, the assessee had given inaccurate particulars. The court noted that as per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word particular is a detail or details (in the plural sense); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word particular used in section 271(1)( c ) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. The court further observed that 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. The court observed that reading the words inaccurate and particulars in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. The court noted that it was an admitted position that no information given in the return was found to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The learned counsel argued that submitting an incorrect claim in law for the expenditure on interest would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income. We do not think that such can be the interpretation of the concerned words. The words are plain and simple. In order to expose the assessee to 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. 6.3 In the present appeal, the assessee has submitted the full particulars. There is no dispute that she has not paid the amount to the builder or that she has made a false or inflated claim. Thus, the case definitely does not fall either of the two limbs of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars under the main provision. Coming to examine the case under explanation 1 to 271(1)(c), we have to examine whether the case in question falls within the other two limbs viz. clause (A) and (B) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
