TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer is approved, there is no case for penalty for concealment, because everything would have remained profit of the new line of business discovered, in relation to which no penalty proceedings were initiated. Considering in the light of the fact that disclosure of profits from such business did not attract any penalty u/s 271(1)(c), making a claim u/s 80IB out of those profits can only be considered as genuine claim. This is not a fit case for levy of penalty under S.271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos.1003/Hyd/2015, ITA Nos.1004/Hyd/2015, ITA Nos.1005/Hyd/2015 - - - Dated:- 30-10-2015 - SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri K.C.Devdas For The Respondent : Shri M.Sitaram DR ORDER These three appeals by the assessee are directed against a common order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) VII, hydd dated 15th May, 2015, confirming the penalties of ₹ 3,21,994; ₹ 2,80,758 and ₹ 2,14,996 for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 respectively imposed by the Assessing Officer under S.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 2. Facts of the case in brief, as taken from the appeal for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended that there was no concealment of any particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and he is under bona fide impression that he is eligible for deduction under S.80IB. 7. The Assessing Officer was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee. He noted that the assessee has to maintain proper books of account and enclose Profit Loss Account, Balance Sheet, audit Certificate in Form No.10CCB in order to claim deduction under S.80IB. As against this, he noted the assessee has not maintained books of account and hence the question of enclosing Profit Loss Account and other relevant certificates did not arise, and the assessee himself accepted to disallow the claim for deduction under S.80IB. The Assessing Officer accordingly concluding that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars to claim deduction under S.80IB, imposed penalty under S.271(1)(c) working out the same at the minimum leviable under the Act. 8. Details of income declared by the assessee in the original returns and in the returns filed in response to notice under S.153A, together with the amounts claimed by way of deduction under S.80IB, and the incomes assessed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng activity is not admitted by the appellant on his own but the undisclosed sales were detected by the Department by carrying a search operation. In all the case laws relied upon by the appellant, the facts are that there is some ground to make the claims though they are not allowable in nature. It is not a case of not satisfying with the evidences produced in support of claim of deduction but a case of total absence of any iota of evidence in support of the claim of deduction u/s 801B. Therefore, the case laws relied upon by the appellant are totally different and are not emulated here. I 7.6 In view of the above discussion , I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by making a conscious wrong claim and the r efore, the penalty levied u/s 271 (1)( c) by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 2003-04 stands sustained. 10. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), confirming the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer, assessee is in second appeal before this Tribunal. 11. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities and other material on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, as held by the apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Ltd. (322 ITR 158), wherein it has been held that mere making of a claim which is not found to be sustainable by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee and just because the assessee s claim has not been accepted, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be attracted especially when there is no allegation that any particulars filed by the assessee in relation to such claim were found to be incorrect or inaccurate. In the facts of the present case, assessee has not only made a claim but contested against the denial of the same right upto the stage of Tribunal. It is only when the assessee noticed the inability to furnish evidence to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer in support of the claim made, that he withdrew the same. It is not that assessee that the assessee has furnished some evidence or particulars, which were found to be false or incorrect, but it is a case, where the assessee could not furnish necessary evidence and accordingly withdraw the claim made. When the assessee could not furnish any evidence in support o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
