TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - SUPREME COURT) - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.5371/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 13-6-2018 - SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh. None For The Revenue : Sh. S.R. Senapati, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 19/08/2016 passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-35, New Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13 . The issue under challenge is the confirmation of penalty of ₹ 1,51,579/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 1.1 The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- Ld. CIT (A) has e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee when the appeal was called out for hearing nor was any adjournment application received on behalf of the assessee in this regard. The notice for hearing before the ITAT has also been returned un-served by the postal authorities. Accordingly, looking into the facts of the case, we are proceeding to hear this appeal ex parte qua the assessee. 3. It is seen that the impugned penalty was imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and also for concealing its income with respect to disallowance of interest for delayed payment of TDS amounting to ₹ 1,95,952/- and disallowance of donation amounting to ₹ 2,50,000/-. It is further seen that when the assessee approached the Ld. CIT (A) against the imposition of the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty to the assessee of being heard but a perusal of the impugned order shows that the Ld. CIT (A) had duly considered the written submissions filed on behalf of the assessee when the assessee had failed to appear before the Ld. CIT (A) and the notice of hearing had returned un-served. Even the notice of hearing for this appeal before the ITAT sent by the Registry of the ITAT has returned unserved. This reflects a very careless attitude on the part of the assessee and we were inclined to dismiss the assessee s appeal at the thresh-hold itself for want of prosecution. However, we are proceeding to adjudicate the appeal on the merits of the case. 5.2 At this juncture it may be apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and particulars in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. The court noted that it was an admitted position that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It was not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect and accordingly, held that, prima facie , the assessee could not be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The court repelled the contention raised by the counsel for the revenue that submitting an incorrect claim in law for the expenditure on interest would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income . The Hon ble Apex Court held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present is not a case of concealment of income. That is not the case of the Revenue either. However, the Ld. Counsel for the revenue suggested that by making incorrect claim for the expenditure on interest, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word particular is a detail or details (in plural sense); 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 foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
