TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty levied ultimately on a different limb of the offence. In these type of cases, the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court had held that when there is no satisfaction recorded by the ld. AO in the quantum assessment order and penalty initiated on one limb and ultimately levied on different limb of the assessee, then in such cases, the penalty levied deserved to be cancelled. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY [ 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . Similar view has also been taken by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the recent decision in the case of Ventura Textiles Ltd., vs. CIT [ 2020 (6) TMI 305 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hold that the pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1961. 2. The only issue to be decided is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to ₹ 92,716/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is a private limited company engaged in trading of chemicals, dyes and intermediates. The assessee also acts as a commission agent. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y.2014-15 on 26/11/2014 declaring total income of ₹ 2,19,41,810/- comprising of income from house property and income from business. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 26/12/2016 determining total income at ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the block, it loses its identity. However, despite this, the assessee took efforts in furnishing the purchase cost of the respective properties and the written down value before the lower authorities. This enabled the ld. CIT(A) to actually identify the written down value of respective properties that were let out and calculate the depreciation amount at ₹ 8,81,137/-. The ld. CIT(A) had disallowed the said depreciation on the ground that since the rental income derived from those properties were taxed under the head income from house property and assessee would be entitled for statutory deduction @30% towards repairs alone and no further deduction is permissible under the head income from house property . We find that this Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on different limb of the assessee, then in such cases, the penalty levied deserved to be cancelled. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery reported in 392 ITR 4 (Bom). Similar view has also been taken by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the recent decision in the case of Ventura Textiles Ltd., vs. CIT dated 12/06/2020 reported in 117 Taxman.com 182(Bom). Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hold that the penalty levied in the instant case amounting to ₹ 92,716/- is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 3.4. Even otherwise on merits, we find that it was the assessee which has actually provided all the details in respect of v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already seen the meaning of the word particulars in the earlier part of this judgment. Reading the words in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the Return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
