9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw for our consideration :- 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(I)(c) without considering that "Mens rea" is apparent in this case? 2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in deleting the Penalty relying on the earlier decision [2010] of the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products vs CIT when latter [2013] judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data P Ltd Vs CIT had clearly held that "Voluntary disclosure does not release assessee from mischief of penal proceedings under section 271(I)(c)"? 3. The Tribunal, while deleting the penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, and upholding the order of the First Appellate Authority, viz., Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer. As found by the Apex Court in Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra), mere making a claim under Section 10B of the Act after furnishing all the particulars of income, cannot be a reason for concluding that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed any part of income. In view of the above, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue, Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar vehemently submitted before us that the Assessee deliberately made the claim under Section 10B of the Act for deduction of its 100% export income, it being a 100% EOU beyond the Sunset year of AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09-10, in the present case. He submitted that there was no mens rea, or ill intention on the part of the Assessee in initially making a claim under the bona fide confusion but withdrew the same immediately upon being made aware of the correct legal position, by initiation of the proceedings by the Assessing Authority. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158, which has been relied upon by the Tribunal for setting aside the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is applicable to the facts of the case and therefore, he submitted that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal filed by the Revenue and this Court could not restore the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority itself. Therefore, the only mistake, which is rather inadvertent on the part of the Assessee, is to make a claim under section 10B of the Act, but he has finally withdrawn the same. The fact remains that there has been no revenue loss or loss of tax to the department in the present case. 8. We are of the considered opinion that the imposition of penalty and realisation thereof is not a regular source of income for the Income Tax Department. It is only the justifiably imposition of tax which is intended to be recovered and unless there is a mens rea or a guilty animus on the part of the Assessee, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is an exception rather than a rule. 9. In these circumstances, where the two regular ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
