9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to '32,58,703/- imposed by the Assessing Officer (in short, "AO") had been deleted. Ms. Mathur further relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors and Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 369. 3. In fact, Section 271(1)(c) came to be interpreted by the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors & Ors. (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court over-ruled the decision in Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint CIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) and approved the decision in Chairman, SEBI vs. Shriram Mutual Fund and Anr. (2006) 5SCC 361. In the said case, the Supreme Court held:- "27. The Explanations appended to section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty under Section 271(1)(c), mens rea was necessary, as according to the Court, the word "inaccurate" signified a deliberate act or omission on behalf of the assessee. It went on to hold that clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) provided for a discretionary jurisdiction upon the assessing authority, inasmuch as the amount of penalty could not be less than the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of such concealment of particulars of income, but it may not exceed three times thereof. It was pointed out that the term "inaccurate particulars" was not defined anywhere in the Act and, therefore, it was held that furnishing of an assessment of the value of the property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat according to this Court the effect and difference between Section 271(1)(c) and Section 76C of the Act was lost sight of in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT. However, it must be pointed out that in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, no fault was found with the rasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT, where the court explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and "inaccurate". It was only the ultimate inference in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT 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 v. Joint CIT was overruled………" Thereafter, so stating their Lordships‟ proceeded to hold as follows:- "11. …….A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also postponed to the three quarters of the next year. The AO was of the view that entire fee should be booked as income in the quarter in which it was received and invoiced and the apportionment in the next three quarters was not correct. As per assessee, it adopted principle of matching concept which requires that expenses for the accounting period should be matched against related income. 5. In view of the above discussion, it is crystal clear that assessee has given full disclosure with respect to the nature of income received and the expenses to be incurred thereon. Even in the Schedule-14 relating to the significant accounting policies and the notes annexed thereto, the assessee has clearly stated that "TPA fees" is invoiced to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
