TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MI 80 - SUPREME COURT ). Further the return which was filed on the basis of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant though under mistake, the assessee could take the benefit on the basis of bonafide belief. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 222 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS. RAJ RAHUL GARG, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. B.M.Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 23.12.2014, Annexure-4 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that the authorities by reference to the opinion of another High Court cannot say that the point is debatable? v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in not considering detailed findings given by CIT(A) in his order dated 1.8.2013 in paras 3.14 to 3.26? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The respondent assessee is a firm which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of biscuits/cookies and other bakery products. It filed its return of income on 30.9.2009 at total income of Rs. nil for the assessment year 2009-10. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under various sections of the Act were issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee. At the time of making return, the issue was debatable and penalty could not have been levied. Further, the Tribunal noticed that the assessee had disclosed all the particulars of the income and had not concealed anything. Once proper disclosure had been made, penalty was not attracted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Limited, (2010) 322 ITR 158. Further the return which was filed on the basis of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant though under mistake, the assessee could take the benefit on the basis of bonafide belief. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- 12. We have considered the rival submissions carefully and find force in the subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is a mistake on the part of Chartered Accountant, the assessee can always take the shelter that he was under bonafide belief on the basis of such advice that deduction was claimed on the basis of such bonafide belief. Therefore, in our opinion this is not a fit case for levy of penalty and accordingly we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and delete the penalty. 5. In Reliance Petroproducts (P) Limited's case (supra), (2010) 189 Taxman 322 (SC), the Apex Court held that merely because the assessee had claimed expenditure which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was recorded thus:- 7. As against this, Learned Counsel a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 271(1)(c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. It is an admitted position in the present case that no information given in the Return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It is not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
