9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was partly accepted by the Ld. CIT (A) also. There is no factual finding by the AO that the assessee had furnished any inaccurate particulars while bifurcating the value between land and buildings while computing short term capital gains. With regard to the provisions of section 271(1)(c ) of the Act pertaining to penalty, RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] has authoritatively laid down that making of a claim by the assessee which is not sustainable will not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Penalty deleted - decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T, the ITAT deleted the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and also upheld the addition pertaining to short term capital gains as restricted by the Ld. CIT (A). Thus, the only addition which finally survived was of ₹ 4,73,881/- which pertained to addition on account of short term capital gain. Subsequently, penalty of ₹ 8,95,256/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the total addition of ₹ 26,33,881/- which included the disallowance of ₹ 21,60,000/- pertaining to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. This penalty of ₹ 8,95,256/- was upheld by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and now the assessee is before the ITAT challenging the confirmation of penalty and has raised the following grounds of appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ple and the difference arose only due to difference in valuation . 8. That the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) is against the well established norms and jurisprudence of penalty under the IT Act and against various decisions of ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court. 9. That the appellant had neither concealed income nor had filed inaccurate particulars of income and the CIT (A) has grossly erred in upholding the penalty order. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in invoking Explanation 1 against the appellant. 11. That without prejudice to above, the AO has levied penalty without giving effect to the ITAT order in quantum appeal. 12. That the explanations filed before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further submitted that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It was submitted that this is a simple case where the assessee had apportioned the value of the land and building sold by it on the basis of a valuation report taken from the architect. This valuation report was not accepted by the AO. However, on appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the valuation report submitted by the assessee and returned the findings in favour of the assessee and also partly upheld the values of the land and building apportioned in the valuation report. This order of CIT (A) was further upheld by the ITAT. The Ld. AR submitted that this is a case of difference of opinion between the assessee and the AO and a case wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y proceedings or before the Ld. CIT (A) and that the assessee is raising such objection now, after almost 6 years of assessment order dated 28.12.2010, wherein such penalty was initiated and the initial penalty notice dated 28.12.2010 was issued. It was submitted that, thus, on facts, it can be safely concluded that even assuming that there was defect in the notice, it had caused no prejudice to the assessee and that the assessee had clearly understood what was the purport and import of notice issued under Section 274 r/w Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice were followed. 4.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the relevant material on record. As far as the question of penalty on the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of the Revenue either. However, the Ld. Counsel for the revenue suggested that by making incorrect claim for the expenditure on interest, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word "particular" is a detail or details (in plural sense); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word "particulars" used in the section 271 (1) (c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. It is an admitted position in the present case that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It is not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
