TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Mishra-II, JJ. For the Appellant : Manish Misra For the Respondent : Pradeep Agarwal ORDER 1. Heard Sri Manish Misra, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Pradeep Agarwal, Advocate for respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961 ) has arisen from judgment and order dated 07.08.2013 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'A', Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in I.T.A. No. 475/LKW/2011 for Assessment Year 2002-03. 3. The appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2002 and claimed depreciation. Assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 17.02.2005 on a total income of ₹ 12,11,51,970/- against net loss shown by Assessee at ₹ 1,19,27,779/-. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO ) made additions of ₹ 2,02,09,403/- and disallowed deduction under Section 40A(7) towards gratuity premium. Assessee preferred appeal which was partly allowed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ) but disallowance to extent of ₹ 42,04,167/- was maintained. Assessee and Revenue both filed appeal before Tribunal. Vide order dated 18.01.2008 Tribunal, in respect of issues raised in appeal by Assessee, remanded matter to the file of AO but gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee. It is further observed that AO has not given any finding that the amount was really and certainly either income concealed or income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. This finding has been confirmed by Tribunal in the order dated 07.08.2013, impugned in this appeal. 6. In the matter of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Act, 1961 it has to be found as a matter of act that there is concealment of particulars of income or inaccurate particulars have been furnished. In the present case Assessee furnished particulars though claimed deduction which was not found tenable. The meaning of word 'particulars' has been considered in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 2010(322 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct; not according to truth; erroneous; as an inaccurate statement, copy or transcript . 9. Thereafter it was held that reading the words inaccurate particulars in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. If there is no finding that any details supplied by Assessee in return are incorrect or erroneous or false, Section 271(1)(c) would not attract. It has also clarified that, A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. 10. Aforesaid obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
