9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue are that as against returned income of ₹ 74,31,802/-, the assessment was completed on a total income of ₹ 99,10,802/-. While computing the income, the deduction u/s 80IB of the Act was recomputed by excluding the value of export incentive on account of DEPB and misc. income of ₹ 38,50,000/- representing the amount surrendered during the course of survey. The Assessing Officer excluded the said amounts being not derived from industrial undertaking, and consequently the deduction u/s 80IB of the Act was not allowed on the said amounts. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act were initiated on the said disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The Assessing Officer held the assessee to have filed inaccu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... curate particulars of income. The two ingredients of section 271 (1)(c) of the Act namely concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, are required to be fulfilled in order to justify the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There is no justification for levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act in each case where certain additions have been made to the returned income of the assessee, while completing the assessment. 6. In the facts of the present case, penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act has been levied on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming excess deduction u/s 80 IB of the Act. The said deduction was denied to the assessee on the basis of the ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Liberty India (supra) and therefore the assessee willfully claimed a wrong deduction in the return of income. In this connection we find that at the time of the filing of return on 29.10.2003 the judgment of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) was not available. Therefore it could not be said that the assessee deliberately made any wrong claim in the return of income. The claim made by the assessee in the return was made on a bonafide basis. Evidently the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of India Gelatine Chemicals Limited (supra) dated April,2004 supported the case of the assessee. Even the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Paramount Industrial Corporation 109 TTJ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejection of assessee s claim, which was of debatable nature, would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered opinion, having regard to the fact that the claim was made by the assessee on bonafide considerations and being a debatable issue, the rejection of the same in the assessment proceedings does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income so as to attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, we find no error in the approach of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. 7. The issue arising in the present appeal before us is identical to the issue before the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
