9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessment Year under consideration disclosing a total income of Rs. 17,22,50,294 through electronic media on 25.09.2006. Subsequently the return was revised showing total income at Rs. 17,43,13,477 on 15.11.2006 due to claim of expenditure u/s 35AC , since the notification received from the National Committee after filing of the original return. In the computation of total income, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 7,59,17,674 u/s.80IA attributable to the entire net income of Power Plant Unit of the assessee company. The return was taken up for scrutiny. The scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) was completed on 19.12.2008 on a total income of Rs. 25,24,07,991 which included a disallowance of Rs. 7,59,17,674 claimed by the assessee as ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proportionate expenses incurred under various head has not been deducted / debited from the sale of power. The above fact apparently shows that the profit from Power Plant has been abnormally shown at a higher figure only for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s.80lA. This fact was also brought to the notice of Assessee and opportunity was given to explain the same. But no explanation in any manner was offered by the Assessee in this issue. It is pertinent to mention here that the rate per Unit charged for power consumed by Assessee Company in their Sponge Iron Plant is also not verifiable in absence of Books of A/c. 7. Thus the assessee was offered more than adequate opportunity to prove that Power Plant was actually functionin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iming deduction u/s.80IA. He submitted that this issue is not the case of furnishing inaccurate particulars insofar as the assessee has preferred appeal before the jurisdictional High Court u/s.260A against the order of the Tribunal declining the claim of deduction u/s.80IA. He submitted that the learned CIT(A) did not reason out the facts of the assessee's case for levy of penalty when it was brought to his notice that the levy of penalty on account of declining the claim of deduction u/s.80IA cannot be considered for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He perused the order of the learned CIT(A) who took note of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). Hon'ble Court further observed that if the contention of the revenue is accepted then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 4.1. To sum up, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., [(2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)] sums up the furnishing of inaccurate particulars as informa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rayed that the penalty so confirmed by the learned CIT(A) may be confirmed. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word "particulars" used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In order to expose the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim of deduction when the gross income did not include the power supplied at the rate given by the Electricity Regulatory authority. Naturally the claim was separate and not to be confused with the particulars furnished in the return as has also been observed by the Assessing Officer in his order. There is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return found to be incorrect or erroneous or false insofar as the Assessing Officer has himself contradicted his own finding of holding the claim of double deduction when he found that the assessee had shown 83.91% as profit. The assessee claimed that he had applied the rate as enacted by the Electricity Regulatory authority therefore cannot be part of the return filed with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
