TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome has not been defined under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act the Act. However, the meaning of the term inaccurate has been discussed in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that the term inaccurate signifies deliberate act or omission on the part of the assessee. As such, the details/information contained in the return of income /financial statements /audit report which are not correct according to truth, and were furnished by the assessee with the dishonest intent shall be treated as inaccurate particulars. In the present case we find that the deduction under section 54F of the Act was claimed for the investment made by the assessee in two properties. The fact for the purchase of two properties was not doubted by the authorities below. The assessee has immediately on receipt of the notice under section 142(1) of the Act has revised the computation of income restricting the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act from ₹ 89,83,817.00 and paid the due taxes. Thus it is transpired that the assessee has claimed deduction for the investment in two properties under the bona-f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income that the penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act is sought to be levied. 4. Penalty proceeding U/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act void ab initio as, in the Assessment Order, Ld AO has framed the satisfaction to levy penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income, while the Notice dated 24/06/2016 [which is in continuation of this office notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 the Act dated 25.01.2016] is for have concealed the particulars of your following income. Copy of Assessment Order and Notice U/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 25.01.2016 is attached in Annexure B. In the Assessment Order, AO has framed the satisfaction to levy of penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income and while issuing the Notice for initiation of Penalty the reason is for the concealment of income. Both the reasons are contradictory to each other and hence, the Notice for initiation of penalty is void abinito. Your appellant craves for leave to alter/amend/withdraw/modify any of the above grounds bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not clear as to whether exemption u/s, 54F was claimed for purchase of house or construction of house and how much was the actual investment therein. Only when the Assessing Officer issued questionnaire vide letter dated 07,08.2015, the appellant reduced the exemption u/s, 54F to ₹ 41,92,608/-, From these facts, It is the not fuii in the of he the relevant material for of Therefore, merely because, appellant had revised the computation of income by reducing the claim of exemption u/s, 54FP he cannot be absolved from penal consequences. This view gets support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pvt, Ltd, Vs. C1T 353 (SC) wherein it has been held that voluntary disclosure after detection of concealment does not release the assessee from mischief of penal proceedings. Accordingly, in view of the above factual and legal position, I hold that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income liable for penalty and hence the action of Assessing Officer in this regard is upheld, 4.5 It Is noticed that Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty at 300% of the tax sought to be evaded on the ground that appellant had deliberately and consciousl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cular of income, in this regard we note that the AO has mentioned the specific charge in the penalty order by stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly we hold that, the assessee cannot get the benefit of immunity from the penalty merely there was no specific charge in the penalty notice issued under section 274 of the Act or in the assessment order. We, in this regard, draw support and guidance from the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Snita Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 42 taxmann.com 54 wherein it was held that penalty cannot be imposed without mentioning the specific charge. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: 9. Regarding the contention that the Assessing Officer was ambivalent regarding under which head the penalty was being imposed namely for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, we may record that though in the assessment order the Assessing Officer did order initiation of penalty on both counts, in the ultimate order of penalty that he passed, he clearly held that levy of penalty is sustain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntent shall be treated as inaccurate particulars. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd (supra). We are not concerned in the present case with the mensrea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this case, as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate particulars. 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. We have already seen the meaning of the word particulars in the earlier part of this judgment. Reading the words 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. We must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false 8.3 Now, if we analyses the facts of the present case in the light of the above stated discussion, we find that the deduction under section 54F of the Act was claimed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
