TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of return of income, restricting the deduction by the AO based on DSIR approval can amount to concealment of particulars of income or not ? HELD THAT:- The issue answered in the case of CIT vs. Balaji Distilleries Ltd. [ 2012 (10) TMI 514 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ], wherein it is held that in the absence of due care, it did not mean that the assessee was guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income and hence, the imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on assessee s held not justified. The Hon ble Madras High Court applied the decision of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. [ 2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT ] Also decided in Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t ) vide order dated 27.12.2019. The impugned penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for the assessment year 2016-18 vide order dated 31.10.2021. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of disallowance made u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act by DSIR and adopted by AO though the claim was made by assessee by the assessee by filing of return prior to receipt of certificate from DSIR. For this, assessee has raised various grounds, which are argumentative, factual and case la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 96,40,000/- u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the differential amount of Rs. 22,10,000/- and added to the returned income of the assessee. Accordingly, the following deductions were disallowed and added to the returned income of the assessee:- Heads of Income Rs. B. Addition : weighted portion u/s. 35(2AB) under capital 1,07,98,057 C. Addition : weighted portion u/s. 35(2AB) under revenue 22,10,000 Against this quantum addition or disallowance u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act, on capital expenditure and revenue expenditure, no appeal was filed by the assessee and addition was accepted. 3.1 Consequent to the above assessment, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty by holding that there cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant has contended that the appellant company did not file any inaccurate particular of income as DSIR, subject to certain terms and conditions, did not allow the entire amount of the deduction claimed by the appellant company. In my considered opinion the plea of the appellant does not have much strength. From the facts of the case, it transpires that the appellant company had inflated its claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Had not the assessee s case been selected for scrutiny assessment, the inflated part of the deduction claimed in the Return of income would have gone untaxed. 5.4 . . 5.5 In view of the facts of the case and the above mentioned judgements, I am of the considered opinion that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the other hand, the ld.senior DR stated that this is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income because the DSIR is the authority who certify the claim of weighted deduction for capital and revenue expenditure u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. The ld.senior DR argued that the Act has provided for obtaining the DSIR certificate and assessee have to claim the weighted deduction in line with what was determined by DSIR. 7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The facts are admitted that the assessee while filing return of income has claimed excess weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act in regard to capital expenditure of Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dras High Court applied the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). Further, as contended by the ld.counsel for the assessee and relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd., supra, wherein Hon ble Supreme Court has propounded the meaning of the term particulars used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars . In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
