TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viz: CIT(A) and the Tribunal have on the basis of the disclosure made in the interest tax return have found, no concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the respondent-asseseee. In fact, the Assessing Officer has itself accepted that all particulars had been disclosed as is evident from the order dated 2nd March, 2006 passed on reassessment proceedingss, for quantum. The claim made by the Respondent-assessee is a bona fide claim after having made a full disclosure by filing accurate particulars. Thus, no concealment. Therefore, no penalty under Section 13 of the Interest Act, can be imposed. - Decided in favour of assessee - Income Tax Appeal No. 5 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And B. P. Colab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by order dated 25th March, 2003 of the Assessing Officer after scrutiny in regular assessment proceedings. 4. Thereafter, the assessment for interest tax in respect of assessment year 2000-01 was reopened under Section 10 of the Interest Act. In the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer by order dated 2nd March, 2006 disallowed the deduction of interest tax, amounting to ₹ 91.21 Crores on the ground that the same is chargeable to tax under the Interest Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 2nd March, 2006, the respondentasseseee filed an appeal to the CIT(A). By an order dated 14th May, 2008, the CIA(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Thus, bringing to tax the interest of ₹ 91.21 Crores. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m tax was bona fide on the premise that it does not fall within the definition of interest under Section 2(7) of the Act. Thus, the Tribunal while upholding the deletion of penalty, placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v/s. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158 wherein the Court held that merely making of a claim which is not ganted, would not by itself amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars warranting imposition of penalty. 8. Mr. Kotangale, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue states that the respondent-assessee had accepted the order passed in quantum proceedings by the Assessing Officer as upheld by the CIT(A). Therefore, it being an undisputed position that the amount of ₹ 91.21 Crore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
