9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the figures given in the return were inaccurate which amounts to a concealment and therefore penalty proceedings were justified. Reliance has been placed by Sri Manish Misra, learned counsel for the appellant on the decision reported in 2014 (1) SCC 674 Mak Data (P) Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax to contend that the profit and loss account which was stated in the return could not be substantiated by furnishing any details or particulars by the assessee. To the contrary the assessee claimed an additional adjustment which clearly established the concealment and non-explanation of the facts about an amount of Rs. 6,04,418/-. It is this figure which has been treated to be an inaccurate particular for the financial year 2008 and 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 277. Having considered the aforesaid submission, what we find is that elaborate discussion on this issue has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158, paragraph 7 of the judgment is extracted hereinunder:- "As against this, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent pointed out that the language of Section 271(1)(c) had to be strictly construed, this being a taxing statute and more particularly the one providing for penalty. It was pointed out that unless the wording directly covered the assessee and the fact situation herein, there could not be any penalty under the Act. It was pointed out that there was no concealment or any inaccura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lars. The Learned Counsel argued that "submitting an incorrect claim in law for the expenditure on interest would amount to giving inaccurate particulars 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 Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 225 CTR (SC) 248 : (2009) 28 DTR (SC) 1: (2009) 9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
