New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (5) TMI 870 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

2015 (5) TMI 870 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - claim of deduction under Section 80-P(2)(d) - Held that:- In the case in hand the applicant submitted the revised return and on basis of that tax was recovered. True it is, at the fist instance the assessee claimed exemption as per provisions of Section 80-P(2)(d) of the Act of 1961 but immediately on knowing about its non-applicability a revised return was filed disclosing accurate income. Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Bank Ltd. was a bonafide error and that was immediately rectified by submitting a revised return.

In this factual background we do not find any substantial question of law that may demand adjudication by us by entertaining an appeal as per provisions of Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - Decided in favour of assesse. - D B Income Tax Appeal No. 105/2013 - Dated:- 1-5-2015 - Govind Mathur And Jaishree Thakur,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr K K Bissa For the Respondent : None .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'). The Assessing Officer by a notice, as per provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, dated 5.12.2011 called upon the assessee respondent to explain as to why penalty be not imposed upon it for concealment of particulars of income for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee responded the notice with assertion that it disclosed full particulars of the income and did not conceal any particulars of income, as such no action as per Section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under Section 80-P(2)(d) of the Act of 1961 was not with any ulterior motive, hence a revised return was filed, as such, the action of the assessee does not fall in the category of concealment or furnishing inaccurate income. An appeal preferred by the revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also came to be dismissed by judgment dated 21.1.2013. Before us, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the revenue is that the the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur as well as th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

axable income. No information given in the revised return was found incorrect or inaccurate. No material is also available on record to establish that any conscious effort was made by the assessee respondent to conceal its income. To impose a penalty as per Section 271 (1)(c) the Assessing Officer is required to get himself satisfied about existence of the conditions stated therein. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2010) 32 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. That is not the case of the Revenue either. However, the learned counsel for Revenue suggested that by making incorrect claim for the expenditure on interest, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of the income. As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word "particular" is a detail or details (in plural sense); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word "particulars" used in the section 271(1)(c) would embrace the meaning of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ticulars 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 covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT Vs. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009) 9 SCC 589, where this court was considering the same provision, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

271(1)(c), conditions stated therein must exist." Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. In Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint CIT (2007) 6 SCC 329, this court e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t 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 held that the Assessing Officer must be found to have failed t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t. In Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors, after quoting from section 271 extensively and also considering section 271(1) (c), the court came to the conclusion that since section 271(1)(c) indicated the element of strict liability on the assessee for the concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return, there was no necessity of mens rea. The court went on to hold that the objective behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with Explanations indicated with .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1)(c) and section 276C of the Act was lost sight of in the case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint CIT However, it must be pointed out that in Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors, no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint CIT, where the court explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and "inaccurate". It was only the ultimate inference in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint CIT to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot; We have already seen the meaning of the word "particulars" 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 the case, there would be no questi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version