TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrong particulars nor concealment within the scope of section 271(1)(c) a penal provision to be construed strictly. Thus, we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Deb to the extent that calculation would also amount to an indirect concealment or a wrong furnishing of particulars, as was held by the learned Tribunal. In our view, the wrong calculation on the basis of a mistaken indexation does not come within the purview of section 271(1)(c). Hence, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The question, as reframed in this order, is answered in the negative. - HON'BLE D.K. SETH AND SOUMITRA PAL, JJ. For the Appellant : Rupen Mitra and Aniket Mitra, Advs. For the Respondent : Dipek Deb, Adv. JUDGMENT 1. The appeal was admitted o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relied on a passage from the decision in CIT v. Capital Electronics (Gariahat) [2003] 261 ITR 4 (Cal). 4. In the said decision, Mr. Deb had occasion to appear and make similar submission, viz., The statute has to be interpreted in the manner it has expressed its intention. Neither the Tribunal nor the court can interpret an enactment in a manner different from the way it is expressed by the Legislature through express language 'employed' therein. This submission was accepted in the said decision by the Division Bench in which one of us (D. K. Seth J.) was a party. He has also pointed out that the learned Tribunal and the Assessing Officer have come to a finding of fact that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re furnished and there is no finding that the particulars that were furnished were wrong in any respect. 8. There is nothing to indicate that there was any concealment. The only wrong information that was detected by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the learned Tribunal disagreeing with the decision taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was that the calculation made on the basis of the indexation was wrong and that indexation was not correct. Thus, the question boils down to the proposition that it was a wrong calculation on the basis of a mistaken indexation. Now, the question is whether the wrong calculation on the basis of the mistaken indexation could be treated to be an indirect concealment or a wrong furnishing of par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand, on the basis of the particulars furnished the Assessing Officer has arrived at the correct indexation. 11. There is a distinction between furnishing of wrong particulars and making a wrong calculation on the basis of the particulars furnished. If the particulars are furnished then there cannot be any question of concealment. A mistaken calculation is distinct from concealment. A mistaken indexation would not amount to furnishing of wrong particulars nor concealment within the scope of section 271(1)(c) a penal provision to be construed strictly. Conclusion: 12. Thus, we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Deb to the extent that calculation would also amount to an indirect concealment or a wrong furnishing of particulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
