TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II. Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much he was not justified to arbitrarily uphold levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at ₹ 11,00,000/- by the Ld. Assessing Officer whereas no such penalty was exigible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The only issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to ₹ 11 lacs. 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration survey operations under section 133A of the Act were conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 8.2.2006. The assessee during the course of survey offered an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plea of the assessee that no penalty was leviable in cases where there was difference of opinion, was not accepted by he Assessing Officer, as according to him, there were no two views possible on this issue. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee had nowhere contested the head under which the surrendered income had been assessed and in any case, the surrender being on account of unexplained cash and unexplained investment, could not be treated as business income. Further the claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act on which surrendered income was not allowable in view of the ratio laid down in National Leggured Works (supra). The assessee was held to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income and thus liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct Forgings 11 ITR (Trib) 166 (Chd) 6. The learned D.R. for the Revenue placing reliance on the order of the authorities below further placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Chadha Sugars Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [135 ITD 42 (Del). 7. The learned A.R. for the assessee further placed reliance on the order of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd. in ITA Nos.609 to 611/Chd/2008 relating to assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 2000-01, order dated 28.11.2008 reported in (2009) [129 DTR (Chd)(Trib)] 1. The learned A.R. for the assessee further pointed out that the said decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Arisudana Spi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee as income from other sources under the provisions of section 69A, 69B and 69C of the Act. The Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) denied deduction claimed under section 80IB of the Act on the said surrendered amount of ₹ 1 crore and consequently the deduction under section 80IB of the Act was recomputed. The assessee was held to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income because of non allowance of deduction under section 80IB of the Act on the surrendered income and consequently penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹ 11 lacs was levied. The plea of the assessee before us was that it had furnished complete particulates of its income in the return of income filed for the captioned assessment year and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort computing the deduction allowable under section 80IB of the Act on the book results shown by the assessee, which apparently were not correctly shown, does not exonerate the assessee from the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. It is an admitted position that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable in cases where the assessee has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Either of the two limbs of section 271(1)(c) i.e. concealing the income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars are to be satisfied, before levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Merely because it had made the claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act, which in turn was certified by the Chartered Accountant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iny. If the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bonafide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act. If we take the view that a claim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation on which it could be made, the assessee would not be liable to imposition of penalty, even if he was not acting bonafide while making a claim of this nature, that would give a license to unscrupulous assessees to make wholly untenable and unsustainable claims without there being any basis for making them, in the hope that their return woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
