TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount to concealment of particulars. Here also, in absence of any furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the respondent of any concealment on his part while making a claim, no proceedings could be initiated of penalty. It fails to understand that additional depreciation was not available to it under the law if claims before the authority concerned, by disclosing all particulars which, it was require to do and if the claim is disallowed, how could it become either the concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Reliance Petroproducts [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] has clearly held that there has to be a concealment of particulars of the income of the assessee or matter to be covered under Section 271(1)(C). Secondly, it must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. In the matter before Apex Court it was an admitted position that no information given in the written was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It was not that any statement made or any details supplied it was found to be factually incorrect. The revenue had argued that submitting an incorrect claim in law for the expenditure or interest would amount to be inaccurate particulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordingly, the claim of additional amount of ₹ 18,47,95,000/- (rounded off into) had not been sustained. 4) The penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) for a sum of ₹ 6,13,84,278/- and this was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, eventually, while passing an order on the ground of concealment of the income, the penalty order came to be passed in light of the Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5) An assessee had preferred an appeal before the CIT Appeals, Revenue, which allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 6) A challenged was made by the Revenue to the said order of the CIT Appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed by the ITAT, on the ground that the Assessing Officer had initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income but ultimately levied the penalty for concealment of the income and also on the ground of that it was the case of disallowance, and therefore, also it is not the question of concealment of income. More particularly, when there was a full disclosure of the claim on the part of the assessee, penalty was not justified, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT have considered the disallowance of the claim of depreciation on the part of the authority to hold that the same is not a ground to hold that it is a concealment of income. While so holding, it noticed that the respondent had made a claim of depreciation on the strength of Tax Audit Report, and furthermore, there was a complete disclosure about its claim under Section 80HHC SUPPORTED BY THE CERTIFICATION ISSUED BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. Therefore, it reached to the conclusion that merely because the claim on merit was not granted, the penalty could not be levied. 11) Its quite clear from the detailed discussion on the issue that assessee had not been alleged of not having disclosed any particulars, which it was required to do under the law. It had made a complete disclosure of the claim, which was also certified by the Chartered Accountant. Necessary declarations as required in the prescribed form were also made, therefore, both CIT Appeals and the ITAT were absolutely right in holding that non-allowance of any claim of the assessee would not make the penalty proceedings sustainable under the law. While so holding, ITAT relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. A glance at this provision would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Present is not the case of concealment of the income. That is not the case of the Revenue either. However, the Learned Counsel for Revenue suggested that by making incorrect claim for the expenditure on interest, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of the income. As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word particular is a detail or details (in plural sense); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word particulars used in the Section 271(1)(c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. It is an admitted position in the present case that no information given in the Return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It is not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not exceed three times thereof. It was pointed out that the term inaccurate particulars was not defined anywhere in the Act and, therefore, it was held that furnishing of an assessment of the value of the property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that the explanation must be preceded by a finding as to how and in what manner, the assessee had furnished the particulars of his income. The Court ultimately went on to hold that the element of mens rea was essential. It was only on the point of mens rea that the judgment in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Anr. was upset. In Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (cited supra), after quoting from Section 271 extensively and also considering Section 271(1)(c), the Court came to the conclusion that since Section 271(1)(c) indicated the element of strict liability on the assessee for the concealment or for giving inaccurate pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
