TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when all material facts having been disclosed in the return of income - in favour of assessee. - ITA NO. 93/DEL/2012 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2012 - SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, JJ. Assessee by : Sh. R.K. Raman, CA Department by : Sh. Vikas Suryavanshi, Sr. D.R. O R D E R PER U.B.S. BEDI : JM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi dated 5.10.2011, relevant to assessment year 2001-02, whereby deletion of penalty of Rs. 5,20,969/- imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 has been challenged. 2. The facts indicate that the assessee has disclosed income of Rs. 7,18,825/- in the return filed for the A.Y. 2001-02. However, an addition of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest earned on short term deposits made for raising margin money as business receipts. Thus it is a matter of record that in preceding years, the department has accepted the appellant's claim of treating the interest received on fixed deposits made for obtaining margin money as part of the business receipts which have been allowed to be set off against the business expenses. In the Assessment year under consideration, the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the appellant. However, the ITAT has reversed the order of the AO following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sriram Honda Power Equipment 289 ITR 475(Del). It is thus, apparent that the issue in dispute which has been held to be in the nature of concealment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , only because the incomeFtax officer has chosen to reject the calculation on behalf of the assessee in support of the assessee's claim for deduction and has disallowed such claims for deduction put forward on legal grounds. 10.2 Further in the case of CIT VS. Harshwardhan Chemicals and Mineral Ltd. 259 ITR 112 (Raj.) the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal deleted penalty by holding: "Where an arguable, controversial or debatable deduction is claimed, the claim could not be said to be false, otherwise, it would become impossible for any assessee to raise any claims or deduction which might be debatable and it was not the intention of the Legislature to make punishable such claims, if they were not accepted." 10.3 On further appeal by revenue t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 271(1)(c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. It is an admitted position in the present case that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It is not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Ld. Counsel argued that "submitting an incorrect claim in law for the expenditure on interest would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income". We do not think that such can be the interpretation of the concerned words. The words are plain and simple. In order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly cov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the sides and considered the material on record as well as case laws relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order and find that Ld. CIT(A) has taken a correct view of the matter while following the ratio of the decision mentioned in his order. No contrary material has been placed on record and otherwise, no infirmity or flaw has been pointed out or noticed in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, while concurring with the finding and conclusion as drawn by the Ld. CIT(A), we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25/6/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
