9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess claim. In view of the totality of the facts and decisions rendered in the case of M/s. Bell Ceramics Limited [ 2021 (7) TMI 747 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] we are of the considered opinion that in the present case, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Patel for the respondent has prayed for the dismissal of the tax appeal for the reason that the proposed substantial question of law is not a substantial question of law and the issue involved by way of proposed question of law is no more res integra. 9. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the respondent that the respondent-assessee had claimed excess depreciation on the land component of the properties purchased in the year 2011-12, the revenue failed to detect the same. Even in the year under consideration, AO did not ascertain the same but the assessee suo motu before the learned CIT (A) submitted regarding this. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the respondent that the assessee itself, to align its books of accounts with the MCA notification disclosed all the particulars relating to the excess claim. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. reported in 2010(189) Taxman 322 (SC) wherein the issue of Section 271(1)(c) was considered. He has also relied upon the decision in the case of Mak Data (P) Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterpretation 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. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009(9) SCC 589], where this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008 (13) SCC 369], as also, the decision in Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009(13) SCC 448] and reiterated in para 13 that:- "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of Section 271(1)(c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under Section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as was the case in the matter of prosecution under Section 276-C of the Act. The basic reason why decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra) was overruled by this Court in Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (cited supra), was that according to this Court the effect and difference between Section 271(1)(c) and Section 276-C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra). However, it must be pointed out that in Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (cited supra), no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra), where the Court explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and inaccurate". It was only the ultimate inference in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra) to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (Supra), has observed that the applicability of Section 271(1)(c), the conditions stipulated thereunder must exist. In the present case, the conditions as stipulated under Section 271(1)(c) are examined. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is reproduced hereunder: "271(1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income." 15. In the present case, the revenue has failed to establish that there was a concealment of particulars of the income of the assessee. The revenue has also failed to establish that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. 16. So far as the proposed substantial question of law is concerned, a reference of a decision dated 15.7.2021 in Tax Appeal No. 162 of 2021 rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara v. M/s. Bell Ceramics Limited is necessary. In the said decision, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court in case of Vijay Kumar Talwar versus Commissioner of Income Tax in (2011) 330 ITR 1 considered the issue of substantial question in context of Section 260A of the IT Act and observed as under: "18. It is manifest from a bare reading of the Section that an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal lies only when a substantial question of law is involved, and where the High Court comes to the conclusion that a substantial question of law arises from the said order, it is mandatory that such question(s) must be formulated. The expression "substantial question of law" is not defined in the Act. Nevertheless, it has acquired a definite connotation through various judicial pronouncements. In Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons, Ltd. Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 a Constitution Bench of this Court, while explaining the import of the said expression, observed that: "The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is eithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refer to "decision based on no evidence", it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding." 21. A finding of fact may give riseto a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been (2006) 5 SCC 545 taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread. (See: Madan Lal Vs. Mst. Gopi & Anr. (1980) 4 SCC 855; Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi Vs. Rajat Vidyarthi (2009) 3 SCC 287; Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Vijay Dasharath Patel (2007) 4 SCC 118; Metroark Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta (2004) 12 SCC 505; West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. CESC Ltd. (2002) 8 SCC 715)." 17. In the case on hand, on perusal of the decision of the learned ITAT, the learned ITAT has observed that the addition made in the impugned case on account of excess depreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
