TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urate particulars. Following the decision of SC in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 80) & Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (5) TMI 34). Decision in favour of assessee - ITA No.1841/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2012 - SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JJ. Appellant by : Dr.B.R.R.Kumar, Sr.DR. Respondent by : Shri Sumant Chadha, CA. ORDER PER G.D.AGRAWAL, VP : The only ground raised in this appeal by the Revenue is against the cancellation of penalty of Rs.10,98,757/- levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a company which is engaged in the business of building maintenance an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and the same should be upheld. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, stated that the assessee disclosed all the facts in the return of income. Merely because the assessee s claim of interest was disallowed, it would not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. That the issue of disallowance of interest under Section 14A is a highly debatable issue. That this provision was newly introduced by the Finance Act, 2001. Therefore, when the assessee filed the return for AY 2002-03, it was an absolutely new provision. There were no judicial pronouncements and even recently, the decisions came from a Jurisdictional High Court or other High Courts have mainly set aside the matter to the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) though it was later restored, by the Tribunal, to the Assessing Officer. The appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal was admitted by the High Court. It was, in these circumstances, that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had neither concealed the income nor filed inaccurate particulars thereof. In recording this finding, the Tribunal felt that if two views of the claim of the assessee were possible, the explanation offered by it could not be said to be false. This, however, is not the factual position in the case before us. The facts of the present case thus are clearly distinguishable. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them. The consequence would be that the persons who make claims of this nature, actuated by a mala fide intention to evade tax otherwise payable by them would get away without paying the tax legally payable by them, if their cases are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have. We find that the assessee before us did not explain either to the income-tax authorities or to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as to in what circumstances and on account of whose mistake, the amounts claimed as deductions in this case were not added, while computing the income of the assessee-company. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the assessee is a company which must be having pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y it and its utilisation which was partly for the purchase of shares. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee furnished either any inaccurate facts or wrong facts. Therefore, merely because the Assessing Officer disallowed part of interest, it would not amount to either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. (supra), and also the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Zoom Communication P.Ltd. (supra), uphold the order of learned CIT(A) cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
