TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de under some bonafide mistake, that cannot be a ground for imposition for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has been making similar claim and the same were being allowed in earlier assessment years. Due to sudden change in law, this claim was not allowed and the assessee also corrected its mistake by fling a revised return, it is not a case of willful wrong claim. Therefore, we do not find any mistake in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and confirm the deletion of impugned penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 387/JU/2011 - - - Dated:- 17-12-2012 - SHRI HARI OM MARATHA AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, JJ. For the Appellant Shri U.C. Jain, Shri Gautam Chand Shri Rajendra Jain For the Respondent : Shri Subash Chandra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the assessee has become ineligible for this deduction u/s 80P(2)(ii) and u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The assessee has claimed that it was a technical mistake simpliciter on its part and in making a claim of deduction in this year also is a bonafide mistake. As soon as this was however brought to its notice, the assessee filed revised return withdrawing the deductions and also paid difference of tax alongwith requisite interest payable thereon, to avoid any further litigation. This penalty has been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) by accepting the contention of the assessee that the sudden change in law is the reason for this wrong claim and no sooner did the assessee became aware of this fact, it corrected its mistake by revising the return withdr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee does not, ipso facto, become liable to a penalty. Imposition of penalty is not at all automatic. Meaning thereby, any addition in quantum would not lead to automatic levy of penalty and this is also true in respect of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Not only is the levy of penalty discretionary in nature but the discretion has to be exercised keeping the relevant factors in mind and the approach of the taxman must be fair and objective. This subject has been a matter of great controversy. Finally, after referring to decisions in the cases of Dilip N. Shroff vs JCIT Another, 291 ITR 519, Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as well as Union of India vs Rajasthan Spg. Wvg. Mills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f inviting the penalty under section 271 (1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. 6. Reverting to the facts of the case and after considering the rival submissions, we have found that this is not a fit case for levying penalty as in this case neither the assessee has concealed the particulars of income nor has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. This is simply a case of bonafide mistake which has occurred due to change of law applicable in this year. The assessee had been claiming and was being allowed similar claims of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
