TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturn of income. When the facts remain like this, the question is whether it is permissible for the assessing officer to draw an inference that the assessee tried to conceal the income by showing higher amount of deduction under section 80 IC of the Act. As decided in RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] by any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars and that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. The Hon ble Apex Court further observed that there can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA Nos.4883 & 4884/Del/2011 And ITA No. 472/Del/2013 And Cross Objection Nos. 03 & 04/Del/2019 (Arising out of ITA Nos.4883 & 4884/Del/2011) And And Cross Objection No.120/Del/2019 (Arising out of ITA No. 472/Del/2013) - - - Dated:- 31-12-2019 - Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice President And Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 80 IC of the Act to the extent of ₹ 1, 06, 31, 753/-and the excessive claim was disallowed. 4. Learned Assessing Officer recorded in the order dated 31/12/2007 that the assessee has increased the amount of deduction claimed in section 80 IC of the Act over the earlier figure of ₹ 1,46,53,774/- implying manipulation in the accounts of the assessee, and but for the notice under section 153A of the Act the assessee could not have filed any written rectifying the claim for deduction under section 80 IC of the Act showing it at a lower figure, and therefore, the assessee having revised the figure of claim of deduction under section 80 IC of the Act as a result of search has committed the Act of furnishing inaccurate particulars, inviting penalty proceedings under section 271(1)( c ) of the Act. 5. Learned Assessing Officer issued notice under section 271(1)( c ) of the Act to which the assessee had issued a reply dated 18/3/2010 stating that the reduction in the brought forward losses and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation was on the basis of assessed figures of earlier assessment years and therefore, penalty was not to be levie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come/furnished inaccurate particulars of income and consequently levied the penalty of ₹ 2.90 crores. 7. Assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and contended that the return of income filed in response to section 153A of the Act was the only written to be considered for the purpose of levying the penalty under section 271(1)( c ) of the Act and as there were no inaccurate particulars furnished in such return, no penalty for concealment is leviable. Assessee further contended that there is no concealment or submission of inaccurate particulars by the assessee even in the original return, as all the information relating to the claim of deduction under section 80 IC of the Act was clearly given in the return and the appended documents. 8. Ld. CIT(A) however did not agree with the assessee. According to the Ld. CIT(A) the doctrine of eclipse is applicable to the facts of the case and the original return gets eclipsed and could, therefore, not be acted upon for assessment purpose, due to legal embargo, but it does not get annulled. 9. Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, on a careful consideration of the mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) reached a conclusion that the assessee had furnished all the details of income and expenditure in its return, which details in themselves were not found to be inaccurate,the same cannot be viewed as concealment on the part of the assessee nor as the case of filing inaccurate particulars and, therefore, could not attract penalty in section 271(1)( c ) of the Act, even if the claim of expenditure/deduction is not acceptable to the Revenue. Since all the particulars relating to such a claim were furnished by the assessee and in none of such particulars were found to be inaccurate by the learned Assessing Officer, merely non-acceptance of the claim of the assessee by the learned Assessing Officer and allowing a reduced direction under section 80 IC of the Act cannot amount to concealment or inaccurate particulars and on this premise Ld. CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)( c ) of the Act of the Act. 12. Aggrieved by the impugned order, Revenue preferred this appeal. Assessee also prefer across objections, however, with a delay stating that they realised the legal right at a belated stage a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... less, the fact remains that the assessee had furnished all the details of income and expenditure in its return, which details in themselves were not found to be inaccurate by the learned Assessing Officer and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) held that the same cannot be viewed as concealment on the part of the assessee nor is a case of filing of inaccurate particulars. Insofar as this factual observation of the Ld. CIT(A) is concerned, the Revenue cannot dispute the same. Alongwith the original return of income the assessee had furnished all the details of income which includes the audited P L Account, balance sheet of but the unit as well as the company as a whole, certificate in form No. 10 CCB issued by a Chartered Accountant which includes the particulars of income from sublicensing. There is no dispute that the assessee furnished all these material particulars along with the original return of income. When the facts remain like this, the question is whether it is permissible for the assessing officer to draw an inference that the assessee tried to conceal the income by showing higher amount of deduction under section 80 IC of the Act. 16. In this context we deem it pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Apex Court noted that as per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word particular is a detail or details (in the plural sense); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word particular used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. The Hon ble Apex Court further observed that in Webster s Dictionary, the word inaccurate has been defined as: not accurate, not exact or correct; not according to truth; erroneous; as an inaccurate statement, copy or transcript. The Hon ble Supreme Court observed that by reading the words inaccurate 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 Hon ble Supreme Court further 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 Hon ble Apex Court also re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
