TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the light of the foregoing discussion, We are of the considered opinion that at least penalty is not leviable, therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer was rightly directed to delete the penalty, therefore, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA NO.2458/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 7-11-2016 - Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member For The Revenue : Shri Neil Philiph - DR For The Assessee : Ms. Varsha Dhameja CA ORDER Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atrix and deleted the penalty. The Revenue is aggrieved and is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3.1 If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, penalty order, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, under the facts available on record, we are of the view that even if a wrong claim has been made by the assessee that suo motu does not tantamount furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. It is the duty of the Assessing Officer to take a correct decision. Even if a wrong claim has been made, it may be a good case for quantum addition but certainly not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word particulars used in the Section 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 words are plain and simple. In order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nified a deliberate act or omission on behalf of the assessee. It went on to hold that Clause (iii) of Section 271(1) provided for a discretionary jurisdiction upon the Assessing Authority, inasmuch as the amount of penalty could not be less than the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of such concealment of particulars of income, but it may not exceed three times thereof. It was pointed out that the term inaccurate particulars was not defined anywhere in the Act and, therefore, it was held that furnishing of an assessment of the value of the property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccording to the Court the effect and difference between Section 271(1)(c) and Section 276-C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Anr. (cited supra). However, it must be pointed out that in Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (cited supra), no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Anr. (cited supra), where the Court explained the meaning of the terms conceal and inaccurate . It was only the ultimate inference in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Anr. (cited supra) to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient for the penalty under Section 271(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
