9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1961 in respect of various additions confirmed ignoring the fact that the assessee company had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming (i) excess deduction u/s 10A of ₹ 20,54,000/--, (ii) Provision for Bad debts which was not actually written off amounting to ₹ 6,44,500/-, (iii) loss of assets scrapped ₹ 41,000/- and (iv) non deduction against the exempt income u/s. 14A of ₹ 2,00,000/-". 2. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties, perused the findings of the authorities below and considered the material on record. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The return was accompanied by the audited profi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disallowance is made only on estimate basis so it is not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of any income. The learned CIT(A) accepted the explanation of the assessee that disallowance of ₹ 2,00,000/- will not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It was further explained on account of disallowance of ₹ 41,000/- of loss on account of assets scrapped that the assessee disclosed the loss in Schedule 13 to the profit & loss account under the head other expenses. Since all the particulars were disclosed in the return of income, therefore, mere disallowance would not amount concealment of particulars of income or filing inaccurate particulars. As regards provisions of bad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been discussed by the AO in his order. The ld. CIT(A) in his order has confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 20.54 lacs to the extent that the same has been treated as income not eligible for deduction u/s 10A. It is a fact that the appellant has disclosed other income of ₹ 454.33 lacs in its unit wise income filed along with the annual accounts. It is not the case of the AO that the appellant has made a false claim or suppressed facts relating to the above claim. The disallowance has been made on a question of interpretation of law that is whether consumption tax written back can be treated as business income for the purpose of deduction u/s 10A. No doubt, the above amount has been shown as income. Only for the purpose of section 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that the additions above were not subject to appeal before the Tribunal. He has filed copy of the order of the Tribunal on quantum in the case of the assessee dated 21-11-2008 which revealed that the issue of disallowance of ₹ 2,00,000/- u/s 14A of the IT Act has been restored to the file of the AO for re-computing the disallowance in the light of the provisions of sub section (2) and (3) of section 14A of the IT Act. He has, therefore, submitted that on mere disallowance of expenditure, penalty would not be imposed and relied upon the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). 5. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word "particulars" used in section 271(1) ( c ) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By no stretch of imagination can making an incorrect claim tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed by the assessee, because that is the only document where the assessee can furnish the partic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
