TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeal against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Baroda dated 29.09.2009 for A.Y.2004-2005 arising out of the order of the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The only ground in this appeal by the Revenue reads as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essive claim of depreciation of ₹ 18,45,585/- on which he levied penalty under section 271(1)(c). 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) cancelled the penalty on the ground that the depreciation claimed by the assessee might be incorrect, but it did not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. He also observed that the assessee is a Government Company and it cannot be pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By no stretch of imagination can making an incorrect claim tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. (emphas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. From the above it is evident that Their Lordships have clearly laid down that merely an incorrect claim was made by the assessee, it would not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars so as to make the assessee liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c). In the present, there is no dispute that all the facts have been dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
