9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee that sale tax subsidy was capital receipt was not accepted by the CIT(Appeals) and Hon'ble (ITAT) in appeal by the assessee against quantum addition." 3. The learned A.R. for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the issue in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. 4. The learned D.R. for the Revenue placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue arising in the present appeal is in relation to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee had claimed sales tax exemption received by it at Rs. 32.65 crores as capital receipts, which was treated as revenue receipts by the Assessing Officer. The assessee was further held to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied at Rs. 10,99,19,325/-. 6. We find that identical issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on treatment of sales tax subsidy by the assessee arose in assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The Tribunal in ITA Nos. 70 & 71/Chd/Chd/2012 relating to assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT, Ahemdabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (supra) while referring in the word particulars in "inaccurate particulars of income", observed, "as per Law Lexicon, the meaning of word 'particular' is a detail or details, the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word "particulars" used in Section 271 (1)(c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made." It was further held as under:- "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 the case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e change by virtue of the said judgment. Penalty is imposed only when there is some element of deliberate default and not a mere mistake. This being the position, the finding having been recorded on facts that the furnishing of inaccurate particulars was simply a mistake and not a deliberate attempt to evade tax, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be held to be perverse." 17. The issue arising in the present appeal is relating to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition on account of assessability of sales tax subsidy of Rs. 20,22,09,664/- received by the assessee during the year under consideration. The assessee had treated the said subsidy as capital receipts in its return of income but the same was assessed as revenue receipts in the hands of the assessee following the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (supra). The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the Tribunal which had been admitted in ITA No. 515 of 2009 vide order dated 9.9.2009 and the same is pending before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court for adjudication. Further the appeal relating to assessment year 2006-07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 80-O of the Act, wanted the same at 50 per cent of the gross income received in convertible foreign exchange in India provided by it to its foreign clients. The Assessing Officer, however, was of the view that on correct interpretation under section 80-O, deduction is restricted to the net income and, therefore, expenditure incurred in India for earning the foreign exchange had to be deducted. The Assessing Officer, therefore, wanted the assessee to furnish the details of expenses. As the assessee failed to do the needful in respect of various particulars demanded, the Assessing Officer was left with no alternative but to estimate such expenditure in the ratio of proportion of foreign income to the total income." 4. In the present case, there is no dispute about the quantum of receipt of grant-in-aid from the State Government. The assessee reflected the same as capital receipt, whereas it has been treated as to be revenue receipt. The issue whether the amount of grant-in-aid is capital receipt or a revenue receipt, is a debatable issue. The findings returned in the judgment relied upon is on feet of non-furnishing of details of expenses. The issue was not debatable as in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
