TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t mean that the assessee had concealed any income. Further, we find that the issue ultimately at any rate is debatable since one High Court has already held in favour of the assessee. We also find that in the case of CIT us. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT), the apex Court observed that when no information as given in return is found to be incorrect, penalty could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty under s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is vitiated on facts and unsustainable in law? 2. Learned advocate Mrs. Mauna Bhatt waives notice. Looking to the nature of dispute, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the appeal forthwith without insisting for supply of paper book. 3. Issue pertains to levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al used from GMDC is concerned, though it is true that the quantum additions have become final and the Tribunal's judgment was not further carried in appeal, however, that must be viewed in the background of the assessee's submission that the amount itself was not very substantial and the assessee's financial condition was weak. We also notice that though on facts and on somewhat simil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee had made full disclosures and the statutory report was also suggesting that the claim was legal. He further pointed out that the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT us. K. Rajendranathan Nair (2004) 187 CTR (Ker) 201: (2004) 265 ITR 35 (Ker) held that such claim was sustainable under s. 80HHC of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in reversing the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 230 CTR (SC) 320: (2010) 36 DTR (SC) 449: (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), the apex Court observed that when no information as given in return is found to be incorrect, penalty could not be imposed. It was held that making incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of particulars. 9. In the result, we find that the Tribunal erred in interfering with the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
