Asstt.CIT,Cir.1, Aurangabad, Aurangabad V. Jindal Seeds Company Pvt. Ltd., Jalna

ITA 1472/PUN/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 49789 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP PRADHAN
• Keywords: Wrong claim

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM ITA NOS. 1472 & 1473/PN/2009 (A.YRS. 1999-00 & 2000-01) ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF IT, CIR. I,AURANGABAD APPELLANT VS. JINDAL SEEDS CO. P. LTD., 29 NEW MONDHA, BUS STAND ROAD, JALNA PAN AAA CJ 7152 P . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANDEEP PRADHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N. PURANIK ORDER PER BENCH THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), AURANGABAD DATED 11.9.2009 CANCELLING THE P ENALTIES UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT TH E ACT) IMPOSED BY THE AO FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL MENTIONE D THAT THE AO LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IN CONNECTION WITH THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE IS OF THE OPI NION THAT MAKING OF SUCH WRONG CLAIM ITSELF ATTRACTS PENALTY. FURTHER HE MEN TIONED THAT IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT AS THE RELEVANT CLAIM WAS MADE IN THE VAL ID RETURN FILLED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT AND THE CLAIM WAS NOT FOUND VALID BY THE AO WHICH IS A MATTER OF DISPUTE AND DEBATE. AS PER THE COUNSEL, THE MATTER IS DEBATABLE AND DISPUTED PENALTIES ARE NOT ATTRACTED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) . IN THIS REGARD, HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF RELIANCE PETRO- PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 322 ITR 158 (SC). PER CONTRA , LD DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND FIND THE CLAI M IS BORNE ON THE FACE OF THE RETURN. THE AOS DECISION TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM IS ONE OF THE VIEWS AVAILABLE ON THE SUBJECT. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE AOS DECISION IS UNILATERAL AND CONSTITUTES ONLY ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS ON THE S UBJECT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE RELEVANT INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSEE SAVES THE ASSESSEE FROM THE DEFAULT OF WRONG DISCLOSURE AND THE ISSUE IN QU ESTION IS UNDISPUTEDLY A DEBATABLE ONE IN NATURE. IN OUR OPINION, IN SUCH CI RCUMSTANCES, PENALTIES ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE (SUPRA). 4. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE SCOPE OF THE PENALTY PROVIS IONS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THE PROVISIONS RELEVANT FOR THE PRESENT APPEAL READ AS FOLLOWS. 271(1) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPE ALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON (A) & (B) (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, (D).. HE MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY,-- .. . 5. THE ABOVE PROVISIONS WERE EXPLAINED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE PETRO-PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 322 ITR 158 (SC) AND RELEVANT HELD PORTION OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IS AS FOLLOWS: A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT, THERE H AS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDL Y, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRA CE 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 F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO PEN ALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION , THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. .. T HERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE THE ASSESSE E CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME . WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRACT PENALTY, THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RE TURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE THE RE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 3 6. THUS, THE RETURN OF INCOME IS THE BASIS OR THE S TARTING POINT FOR ARRIVING AT THE ACCURACY OR INACCURACY OF THE PARTICULARS/CLAIM S BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICU LARS OF HIS INCOME.. TO ATTRACT PENALTY, THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS . IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID SETTLED POSITION, WE HAVE EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM IN THE VALID RETURN MAY BE A WRONG CLAIM. MERE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM DOES NOT ATTRACT THE PENAL PROVISIONS UND ER THE SECTION. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FO R LEVY PENALTY. THEREFORE, THE ORDER THE CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE FOR THE ABOVE REASONS TOO. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED IN BOTH THE APPEALS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3 RD DAY OF JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (I.C.SUDHIR) ( D.KARUNAKARARAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 3 RD JUNE, 2011 B COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE. 2. ACIT, CIR.I, AURANGABAD. 3. CIT (A), AURANGABAD. 4. CIT CONCERNED, 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH, PUNE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T PUNE