9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars, the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd [ 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] will be applicable in the present case In the present case the assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income as the revised return was filed during the course of assessment proceedings before being pointed out by the AO in the notice u/s 142(1) 143(2). The assessee has claimed the statutory deductions/exemptions only. Thus, the present case is squarely covered by the Hon ble Apex Court decision [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] and Section 271(1)(c) will not be attracted in the present case. Thus, the Assessing Officer was not right in imposing the penalty and the CIT(A) also ignored the crucial facts of the present case. Hence, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - I.T.A. No. 2033/DEL/2017 - - - Dated:- 3-9-2021 - SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv, Sh. Mahender Govil, CA Respondent by : Sh. Munish Kumar, CIT DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Show Cause u/s 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 19/12/2011 was issued and served upon the assessee further noticed dated 3/3/2014 was also issued to the assessee. In response to the notice the Authorized Representative of the assessee vide letter dated 12/3/2014 submitted the reply thereby relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Product Pvt. ltd. 322 ITR 158 (S.C) contending therein that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable as it has not concealed any facts nor it has furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee made wrong claim in respect of taxable income thereby furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed its income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that neither the assessment order for the relevant assessment year nor any letter or assessment order itself alleged that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) are attracted in the case of assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR 158. The Ld. AR also relied upon the following decisions:- CIT VS. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (2013) 35 Taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka)/(2015) 359 ITR 565. Ventura Textiles Ltd Vs. CIT (2020) 426 ITR 478/117 Taxmann.com 182 Pr. CIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 79 Taxmann.com 96 (Delhi)/393 ITR 1 Pr. CIT Vs. Samtel India Ltd. (2018) 168 DTR (Del) 322 Shri Omprakash T. Mehta Vs. ITO M/s. Balaji Telefilms Ltd. Vs. DCIT Dy CIT Vs. M/s National Textile Corporation Ltd. Asstt. CIT Vs. Ashok Raj Nath (2012) 19 ITR (Trib) 70 (Delhi) Mrs. Manjeet Kaur Saran Vs. DCIT Kailash Chander Malhotra HUF Vs. ACIT Prafull Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) and the penalty order. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. First of all, in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there was no specific charges as relates to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. From the notice dated 19/12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that mere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA S Emerald Meadows (supra) where the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed by Hn ble Apex Court is directly on the issue contested herein by the Assessee. Further, when the notice is not mentioning the concealment or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) will be applicable in the present case. The Hon ble Delhi High Court held as under: 21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iture as well as income in its Return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. Thus, in the present case the assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income as the revised return was filed during the course of assessment proceedings before being pointed out by the AO in the notice u/s 142(1) 143(2). The assessee has claimed the statutory deductions/exemptions only. Thus, the present case is squarely covered by the Hon ble Apex Court decision and Section 271(1)(c) will not be attracted in the present case. Thus, the Assessing Officer was not right in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
