9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 22.06.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal in ITA No.4076/Del/2011 and 4073/Del/2011 pertaining to the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. 2. In both these matters the question is with regard to penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In respect of the assessment year 2003-04 the penalty imposed by the assessing officer was Rs.15.4 lakhs whereas i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn. The penalty has been levied on the respondent-assessee because the claim under section 80-IB in the revised return has not been accepted and has been reduced to Rs.2,52,41,632/-. Similar facts have arisen in respect of the assessment year 2004-05. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) had deleted the said penalty and the revenue was in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culars" 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the penalty order as to which part of the income the assessee had concealed and with regard to which particular facet of his income had the assessee provided inaccurate particulars thereof. In these circumstances, we feel that the Tribunal has correctly applied the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (supra). No substantial question of law arises for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
