Aryan Tulsyan Beneficiary Trust, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1515/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4296 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-02-2019
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILANJAN DEY
• Keywords: Wrong claim; Accommodation entries
• Section: 271(1)(c); 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NOS 1513 TO 1518 OF 2018 AMITA TULSYAN AND OT HERS PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER APPEAL IN ITA NO A SSESSEE RESPONDENT A.Y 1513/HYD/2018 SMT. AMITA TULSYAN, HYDERABAD PAN:ACNPT4565E INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 11(2) HYDERABAD 2014-15 1514/HYD/2018 SHRI MITHILESH KUMAR TULSYAN BENEFICIARY TRUST HYDERABAD PAN:AACTM2400Q - DO - - DO - 1515/HYD/2018 ARYAN TULSYAN BENEFICIARY TRUST HYDERABAD, PAN NO.AACTA9124D -DO- -DO- 1516/HYD/2018 KAUSHAL TULSYAN BENEFICIARY TRUST HYDERABAD, PAN:AABTK6768J -DO- -DO- 1517/HYD/2018 SAURABH TULSYAN BENEFICIARY TRUST HYDERABAD, PAN: AAJPS6211J - DO - - DO - 1518/HYD/2018 LAKSHYA TULSYAN BENEFICIARY TRUST HYDERABAD, PAN:AAATL8200H -DO- -DO- FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI K.C. DEVDAS FOR REVENUE : SHRI NILANJAN DEY, DR DATE OF HEARING: 14.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.05.2019 ITA NOS 1513 TO 1518 OF 2018 AMITA TULSYAN AND OT HERS PAGE 2 OF 9 O R D E R PER BENCH: ALL THESE APPEALS BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A)-5, HYDERABAD, DAT ED 31.05.2018, CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE I.T. ACT. SINCE THE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN ALL OF T HESE APPEALS, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OF BY THI S COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY MRS. AMITA TULSYAN IN ITA NO.1513/HYD/201 8 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CIT APPEALS (5) IS UNSUSTAINABLE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE HON'BLE CIT (A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT ALL THE PARTICULARS IN RELATION TO PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHA RES INCLUDING CONTRACT NOTES, BANK STATEMENTS, DEMAT ACCOUNTS WERE FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THERE IS NO SPECIFIC REMARK AGAINST DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO NOTE THAT IN SPITE OF FAVOURABLE JUDGEMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT} THE APPELLANT HAS VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERE D THE INCOME VIDE ITS LETTER DT. 29-11-2016 TO AVOID LITIGATIONS AND TO BUY PEACE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO NOTE THAT IN THE INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION OF KOLKATA, THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC MATERIAL AVAILABLE AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY OR ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A N INDIVIDUAL AND DIRECTOR OF DIFFERENT COMPANIES WHIC H ARE ENGAGED ITA NOS 1513 TO 1518 OF 2018 AMITA TULSYAN AND OT HERS PAGE 3 OF 9 IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN POLYMER PRODUCTS, FIL ED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2014-15 ON 26.03.2015 ADMITTING INCOME OF RS.19,62,150/-. THE AO RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM TH E DIT (INV.) HYDERABAD, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD SHARES FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.12,89,690/- AND ON VERIFICATION, HE FOUND THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ADMITTED INCOME FROM THE TRANSACTION IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 2 9.03.2016 FOR REOPENING OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT AND SERVED THE S AME ON THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN THE RETURN O F INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SAL E OF SHARES OF M/S. UNNO INDUSTRIES LTD AS EXEMPT U/S 10(38) OF TH E ACT. THE AO, DURING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTICED T HAT THE DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION (KOLKATA) HAD CARRIED OUT COUNTRY WIDE INVESTIGATION TO UNEARTH THE ORGANIZED RACKET OF GE NERATING BOGUS ENTRIES OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND CLAIM THE SA ME AS EXEMPT FROM TAX AND THAT THE MODUS OPERANDI ADOPTED BY THE OPERATORS WAS TO MAKE THE BENEFICIARY PURCHASE THE SHARES AT A VERY NOMINAL PRICE, MOSTLY OFF-LINE THROUGH PREFERENTIAL ALLOTMENT OF OFF- LINE SALE AND THAT THE BENEFICIARY (INDIVIDUAL) WOU LD HOLD THE SHARES FOR ONE YEAR AND THEREAFTER, SELL THE SHARES AT THE PRE- DETERMINED PRICE AND CLAIM LTCG SO GAINED AS EXEMPT U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT WITH THE SOLE AIM OF BRINGING BACK THE U NACCOUNTED MONEY. THE AO, TOOK INTO ACCOUNT, THE INVESTIGATION REPORT OF THE DIT (INV.)KOLKATA AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE STATEMENT OF SRI ALOK HARLALKA, DIRECTOR OF M/S. UNNO INDUSTRIES AND ALSO SRI PAWAN DALMIA, DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY, WHEREIN THEY HAVE STATED THAT THE COMPANIES IN WHICH THEY ARE DIRECTORS ARE NOT R EAL COMPANIES BUT ARE ONLY PAPER COMPANIES AND HAVE ONLY ISSUED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF BOGUS LTCG. THE AO THEREFO RE, ISSUED A ITA NOS 1513 TO 1518 OF 2018 AMITA TULSYAN AND OT HERS PAGE 4 OF 9 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE LTC G CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S 10(38) SHOULD NOT TREATED AS A BOGUS LTC G AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. VI DE LETTER DATED 29.11.2016, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LTCG WH ICH WAS ARISEN OUT OF SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. UNNO INDUSTRIE S TO THE TUNE OF RS. 12,89,690/- IS GENUINE ONE AND THAT IT HAS PAID STT AND WAS THEREFORE, ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS SUCH AS PUR CHASE OF SHARES, COPIES OF THE BANK A/C STATEMENTS AND COPY OF THE D EMAT ACCOUNTS WERE ALSO AVAILABLE AND THEY ARE ACCORDING LY SUBMITTED. FURTHER, IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY AGREED TO OFFER THE CAPITAL GAIN TO TAX . THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURTHER PRAYED THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY NOT LEV Y ANY PENALTY ON SUCH OTHER INCOME. THE AO ACCORDINGLY ACCEPTED T HE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OFFERED TO TAX AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX U /S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. 4. THEREAFTER, THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A REPL Y REITERATING THAT THE INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX ONLY TO BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND NOT DUE TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE AO HOWEVER, HELD THAT AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LTCG IS BOGUS AND PRE-DETERMINED METHOD ONLY TO BRING BACK THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY AND THEREFORE, IT IS LIABLE TO A PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY LEVIED THE MIN IMUM PENALTY OF RS.3,83,060/-. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT ( A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND A PPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NOS 1513 TO 1518 OF 2018 AMITA TULSYAN AND OT HERS PAGE 5 OF 9 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI K.C. D EVDAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, WHILE FILING THE ORIGI NAL RETURN OF INCOME HAD CLEARLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EAR NED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FROM SALE OF SHARES AND HAD CLAIMED TH E SAME AS EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT INITIATED ANY PROCEEDINGS FOR SCRUTINIZING THE ASSESSEES RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREBY ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U/S 148, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED TO WITHDRAW THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GAIN TO TAX AND HAD PAID THE T AXES ACCORDINGLY. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE WAS NO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, BUT THE AO AND THE CIT (A) HAVE LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 6. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT VOLUNTARILY OFFERED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN TO TAX AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY IS JUSTIFIED AND IS SUSTAINA BLE. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE, AT THE TIME O F FILING OF RETURN ITSELF, HAS DECLARED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES AND HAD CLAIMED THE SAME AS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION U/ S 10(38) OF THE ACT. THE AO INITIALLY ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION BUT SUBSEQUENTLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT ON RECEIPT OF THE REPORT OF THE DIT (INV .) HYDERABAD. THEREFORE, HE HAD REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 B Y ISSUANCE ITA NOS 1513 TO 1518 OF 2018 AMITA TULSYAN AND OT HERS PAGE 6 OF 9 OF A NOTICE U/S 148 AND THE ASSESSEE, IN THE RE-ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HAS OFFERED THE LTCG TO TAX. THE PENAL TY U/S 271(1)(C), IS LEVIED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IN THE CASE BEFOR E US, WE DO NOT FIND THAT IT IS A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, BECAUSE, THE ASSES SEE HAD DECLARED LTCG AND HAD CLAIMED IT AS EXEMPT U/S 10(3 8) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT SHARES HAVE SUFFERED STT, BUT SU BSEQUENTLY WITHDREW THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION. THIS MAY, AT MOST BE CONSIDERED AS AN UNSUBSTANTIATED OR WRONG CLAIM BUT IT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR C ONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD (2010) 322 ITR 158 HAS CONSIDERED THE IMPORT OF THESE PHRASES USED IN THE SECTION TO HOLD AS UNDER: 8. A GLANCE AT THIS PROVISION WOULD SUGGEST THAT IN OR DER TO BE COVERED, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICU LARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. PRE SENT IS NOT THE CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF THE INCOME. THAT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE EITHER. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R REVENUE SUGGESTED THAT BY MAKING INCORRECT CLAIM FOR THE EX PENDITURE ON INTEREST, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PAR TICULARS OF THE INCOME. AS PER LAW LEXICON, THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'PARTICULAR' IS A DETAIL OR DETAILS (IN PLURAL SENS E); THE DETAILS OF A CLAIM, OR THE SEPARATE ITEMS OF AN ACCOUNT. THERE FORE, THE WORD 'PARTICULARS' USED IN THE SECTION 271(1)(C) WO ULD EMBRACE THE MEANING OF THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT NO INFORMATION GI VEN 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, AT LEAST, PRIMA FACIE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ARGUED THAT 'SUBMITTING AN INCORREC T CLAIM IN LAW FOR THE EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME'. WE DO NOT T HINK THAT SUCH CAN BE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCERNED WOR DS. THE WORDS ARE PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO THE PENALTY UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, ITA NOS 1513 TO 1518 OF 2018 AMITA TULSYAN AND OT HERS PAGE 7 OF 9 THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY ANY STR ETCH OF IMAGINATION, MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW CANNO T TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN CIT V. ATUL MOHAN BINDAL [2009] 9 SCC 589, WHERE THIS COURT WAS CONSIDERING THE SAME PROVISION, THE COURT OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO BE SATISFIED THAT A PERSON HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THIS COURT REFERRED TO ANOTHER DECI SION OF THIS COURT IN UNION OF INDIA V. DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS [2008] 13 SCC 369, AS ALSO, THE DECISION IN UNION OF INDIA V. RAJASTHAN SPG. & WVG. MILLS [2009] 13 S CC 448 AND REITERATED IN PARA 13 THAT : '13. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT FOR APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 271(1)( C), CONDITIONS STATED THEREIN MUST EXIST.' 8. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IT MUST BE SHOWN THA T THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) MUST EXIST BEFOR E THE PENALTY IS IMPOSED. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BECAUSE THAT IS THE ON LY DOCUMENT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF H IS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, T HE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. IN DILIP N. SHROFF V. JT. CIT[2007] 6 SCC 329, THIS COURT EXPLAINED THE TERMS 'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' A ND 'FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS'. THE COURT WENT ON TO HOLD THEREIN THAT IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C), MENS REA WAS NECESSARY, AS ACCORDING TO THE COURT, THE WORD 'INACCURATE' SIGNIFIED A DELIBERATE ACT OR OMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WENT ON TO HOLD THAT CLA USE (III) OF SECTION 271(1) PROVIDED FOR A DISCRETIONARY JURISDI CTION UPON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, INASMUCH AS THE AMOUNT OF PENA LTY COULD NOT BE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVA DED BY REASON OF SUCH CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME, BUT I T MAY NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES THEREOF. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE TERM 'INACCURATE PARTICULARS' WAS NOT DEFINED ANYWHERE I N THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD THAT FURNISHING OF AN A SSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY MAY NOT BY ITSELF BE FURN ISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT TH E ASSESSEE MUST BE FOUND TO HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THAT HIS EXPL ANATION IS NOT ONLY NOT BONA FIDE BUT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO TH E 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 ES SENTIAL. IT WAS ONLY ON THE POINT OF MENS REA THAT THE JUDGMENT IN DILIP N. SHROFF'S CASE (SUPRA) WAS UPSET. IN DHARAMENDRA TEX TILE PROCESSORS' CASE (SUPRA), AFTER QUOTING FROM SECTIO N 271 EXTENSIVELY AND ALSO CONSIDERING SECTION 271(1)(C), THE COURT ITA NOS 1513 TO 1518 OF 2018 AMITA TULSYAN AND OT HERS PAGE 8 OF 9 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 PARTICULARS WHILE FILING RETU RN, THERE WAS NO NECESSITY OF MENS REA. THE COURT WENT ON TO HOLD THAT THE OBJECTIVE BEHIND ENACTMENT OF SECTION 271(1)(C) REA D WITH EXPLANATIONS INDICATED WITH THE SAID SECTION W AS FOR PROVIDING REMEDY FOR LOSS OF REVENUE AND SUCH A PEN ALTY WAS A CIVIL LIABILITY AND, THEREFORE, WILFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY AS WAS THE CASE IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 276C OF THE ACT. THE BASIC REASON WHY DECISION IN DILIP N. SHROFF'S CASE (SUPRA) WAS OVERRULED BY THIS COURT IN DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS' CASE (SUPRA), WAS THAT ACCORDING TO THI S COURT THE EFFECT AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SECTION 271(1)(C) AND SECTION 276C OF THE ACT WAS LOST SIGHT OF IN CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF (SUPRA). HOWEVER, IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THA T IN DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS' CASE (SUPRA), NO FAULT WAS FOUND WITH THE REASONING IN THE DECISION IN DILIP N . SHROFF'S CASE (SUPRA), WHERE THE COURT EXPLAINED THE MEANING OF T HE TERMS 'CONCEAL' AND 'INACCURATE'. IT WAS ONLY THE ULTIMAT E INFERENCE IN DILIP N. SHROFF'S CASE (SUPRA) TO THE EFFECT THA T MENS REA WAS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR THE PENALTY UNDER SECTI ON 271(1)(C) THAT THE DECISION IN DILIP N. SHROFF'S CASE (SUPRA) WAS OVERRULED. 9. WE ARE NOT CONCERNED IN THE PRESENT CASE WITH THE MENS REA. HOWEVER, WE HAVE TO ONLY SEE AS TO WHETHER IN THIS CASE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN INACCURATE P ARTICULARS. IN WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY,THE WORD 'INACCURATE' HAS B EEN DEFINED AS : 'NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT; NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH; ERRONEOUS; AS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT, COPY OR TRAN SCRIPT.' WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'PARTI CULARS' IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS JUDGMENT. READING THE WORD S IN CONJUNCTION, THEY MUST MEAN THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT A CCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WE MUST HASTEN TO ADD HERE THAT IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR F ALSE. SUCH NOT BEING THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF I NVITING 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. SUCH CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOU NT TO THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. ITA NOS 1513 TO 1518 OF 2018 AMITA TULSYAN AND OT HERS PAGE 9 OF 9 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, IN THE CASE BEF ORE US, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE NECESSARY CONDITION FOR I NITIATING AND LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) DID NOT EXIST THEREFO RE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT LEV IABLE IN THE CASE BEFORE US. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALL THE OTHER CASES BEFORE US ARE BEING SIMILAR, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, T HE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS DELETED IN ALL THE CASES. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH MAY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 10 TH MAY, 2019. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 FLAT NO.1207, 12 TH FLOOR, BLOCK A, SHWETA ARYAN, D.NO.02- 092/B/A-1207, PIPELINE ROAD, JEEDIMETLA, R.R. DISTT . HYDERABAD 500067 2 ITO WARD 11(2) SIGNATURE TOWERS, KONDAPUR, HYDERA BAD 3 CIT (A)-5 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 5 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER