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

2015 (12) TMI 974 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2015 (12) TMI 974 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance under Section 80IC - Held that:- 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 in his income. The meaning of the word “particulars” used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the details of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee, 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. To attract penalty, the details supplied in the return must not be accurate, nor exact or correct, no according to the truth or erroneous - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 295 of 2015 (O&M) - Dated:- 5-10-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. RAMENDRA JAIN., JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Zora Singh Klar, Advocat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ting the penalty levied on the ground that in similar circumstances the penalty had already been deleted for the immediately subsequent year without appreciating the facts of both these years for entirely different from each other? 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of MS Ingot, MS Bars, ERW Pipes and GI Pipes. It filed its return on 30.11.2006 for the assessmen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nterest of the revenue, set aside the same for re-examination of deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80IC of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer during proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act vide order dated 23.12.2011 made the total addition of ₹ 2,23,00,432/- on account of disallowance under Section 80IC of the Act in respect of transport subsidy, bank interest and mibor premium. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Comm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rder dated 28.8.2014 (Annexure A-2) deleted the penalty of ₹ 75,06,450/- imposed by the Assessing Officer. Against the order, Annexure A-2, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 21.1.2015 (Annexure A-3) upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal holding that under the similar circumstances, the Tribunal had deleted the penalty for the assessment year 2007-08. Hence, the present appeal by the revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the present case. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the revenue, we do not find any merit in the said submissions. The additions on account of disallowance under Section 80IC of the Act had been made by the Assessing Officer holding that the transport subsidy was not earned through any manufacturing process and it was not profit derived from the business of the assessee. Additionally, the bank interest and mibor premium were also disallowed considering that these incomes were not derived from .....

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 which was allowed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 5.9.2008. The said order was set aside in revisional proceedings under Section 263 of the Act and the disallowance was made subsequently. All the information, particulars and facts were duly disclosed with the return of income and only view contrary to the original assessment was taken in the re-assessment proceedings based on the same material. According to the CIT(A), there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate pa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al undertaking but are merely incidental to the business of industrial enterprises. However, similar additions made in A.Y. 2007-08 has already been deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench. It is further noted that in A.Y. 2005-06, the appellant claimed deduction u/s 80IC of the Act which was allowed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The return for A.Y. 2006-07 was filed on the basis of audited balance sheet and audit certificate issued u/s 80IC which was also allowed u/s 143(3) vide ord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 in 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ound to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. To attract penalty, the details supplied in the return must not be accurate, nor exact or correct, no according to the truth or erroneous. Considering the facts of the case, therefore, it is noted that all the particulars and primary facts are duly disclosed by the appellant. The books of accounts are audited and Auditor's certificate u/s 80IC was submitted. Therefore, looking into the entirety of the facts and the case laws discussed above, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng observations:- The Ld. CIT(A) has correctly adjudicated the issue because part of the addition has already been deleted by the Tribunal. Otherwise mere claim of deduction under bonafide belief cannot be taken as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income particulars. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed in case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC): A glance at the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax A .....

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