TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d:- 28-9-2010 - CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Advocate with Mr. Pranav Bhaskar, Mr. Siddharth Kapila and Mr. Pravesh Sharma, Advocates MANMOHAN, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act") challenging the order dated 24th July, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in ITA No. 180/Del/2009, for the Assessment Year 2002-2003. 2. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in dismissing the revenue's appeal whereby the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 46,78,832 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncealment of particulars‟, the Apex Court referred to Section 271 and held as follows:- "9.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 the return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. In Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT [2007] 6 SCC 329, thisCourt explained the terms "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars". The Court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), mens rea was necessary, as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee for the concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return, there was no necessity of mens rea. The court went on to hold that the objective behind the enactment of Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanations indicated with the said section was for providing remedy for loss of revenue and such a penalty was a civil liability and, therefore, willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as was the case in the matter of prosecution under Section 276C of the Act. The basic reason why decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT was overruled by this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, was that according to this Court the effect and difference between Section 271(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efit available to the assessee in respect of such expenditure were to extend to 10 years. In such a situation, the claim of assessee is bonafide. The assessee has disclosed all the particulars in this regard. Therefore, though the claim was not upheld by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that assessee has furnished inaccurate particular and concealed particulars of his income. From the same facts disclosed, the opinion of the assessee is that the same is allowable for period of 10 years whereas the opinion of Assessing Officer is that the same is capital expenditure and only depreciation is allowable. Even if, depreciation is allowable the same would be 10% of such expenditure. However, it did not mean to furnish inaccurate particulars of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
