9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 961 ( hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'). 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the records are: The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing printed circuit boards. The assessee company had set up production unit in the year 1996. The assessee was granted Small Scale Industrial Unit (SSI) certificate on 28.05.1998. The assessee, in its return of income for the impugned assessment years, had claimed deduction u/s 80IB of the Act as SSI. The assessee had also filed Form-10CCB certifying status of assessee as SSI undertaking and eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. As per notification dated 10.12.1997 by Department of Industrial policy and Promotion, Ministry of Industry, Govt. of India, an industrial u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal assailing the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (c ) of the Act. 4. The Department has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by raising following grounds in appeal for the assessment year 2003-04 : "1. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty merely on the ground that the one of the three conditions mentioned in Explanation 1 to Section 271 (1)(c ) is not satisfied. The explanation 1 is applicable to the issues of facts and not to the issues of law. Without appreciating this, such a narrow interpretation of Explanation 1 would open the floodgates for assesses to make illegal claims even knowing fully well that the same are not admissible and getting away ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s increased to Rs. 6,53,02,221/- in assessment year 2004-05. The assessee was not in status of SSI, when deduction u/s 80 IB was claimed by the assessee. The assessee wrongly claimed deduction u/s 80 IB of the Act. The ld. D.R further submitted that it is a fit case for levy of penalty and prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 6. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. Therefore, the appeals are decided on the basis of submissions made by the ld. D.R and material available on record. 7. We have perused the orders of Authorities below. In the present set of appeals, the Department has assailed the action of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (c ) of the Act. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court in the case of CIT V/s. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd(supra) has held that by any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. To attract penalty, the details supplied in the return, must not be accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. Where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, there is no question of inviting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
