TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, there would be no question of inviting penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Argument of the revenue that submitting an incorrect claim for expenditure would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income is not correct. By no stretch of imagination can the making of an incorrect claim in law, tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. 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. If the contention of the Revenue is accepted then in case of every Return, where the claim made is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/s 271 (1) (C). That is clearly no the intendment of the Legislature. Thus penalty deleted - Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A. R. For the Revenue : Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of his income furnished inaccurate particulars of such income . The present was not a case of concealment of the income. As regards the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. The words inaccurate particulars mean that the details supplied in the Return are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. In the absence of a finding by the AO that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, there would be no question of inviting penalty u/s 271 (1) (C). (ii) The argument of the revenue that submitting an incorrect claim for expenditure would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income is not correct. By no stretch of imagination can the making of an incorrect claim in law tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. 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. If the contention of the Revenue is accepted then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by the AO for any r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hange of head of income no penalty could be imposed 7 Supreme Court Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 253, 1970 SCR (1) 753 8. In view of submission made here in above, we request you to please direct the A.O. to delete the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). 4. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the above submissions of the assessee dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer observing as follows: ..Having considered facts and circumstances of the case I find it uncontroverted that Rajkot Nagrik Sahkari Bank is not domestic company and it is not subject to dividend distribution tax. The provisions of section 10(34) are categorical that the income by way of dividend referred in section 155-0 is exempt. The assessee was therefore under obligation to ascertain whether Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank was subject to dividend distribution tax stipulated in section 115-0. It is a fact which the assessee was required to ascertain before he claimed a dividend income exempt u/s 10(34). In these facts and circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the materials available on record. It s clear from assessment and reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee for earlier assessment years 2008-09 to 2012-13, the Ld. A.O. has not levied Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on the very same issue of claim u/s. 10(34) on the dividend income received by the assessee. However only for the present A.Y. 2013-14, the Ld. A.O. levied penalty, which is inconsistent with that of the earlier assessment years. The Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. has held the words inaccurate particulars mean that the details supplied in the Return are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. In the absence of a finding by the AO, that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, there would be no question of inviting penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Further the argument of the revenue that submitting an incorrect claim for expenditure would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income is not correct. By no stretch of imagination can the making of an incorrect claim in law, tan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
