Radhyesham Jhunjhunwala, Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1952/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9373 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL CHAWARE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 54B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE , , , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI , AM . / ITA NO . 1952 /PUN/20 14 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 RADHYESHAM JHUNJHUNWALA MZSK & ASSOCIATES, LEVEL - 3, BUSINESS BAY, PLOT NO. - 84, WELLESELY ROAD, PUNE - 411 001. / APPELLANT PAN : AAFHR1228E / V/S. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AURANGABAD. / RESPONDENT A PPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJIV THA KKAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIL CHAWARE / DATE OF HEARING : 25 .0 5 .2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 .05 .201 7 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), AURANGABAD DATED 22.09 .20 14 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2 ITA NO. 1952 /PUN/201 4 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1 ) THE LEARNED TAXING AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD ERRED IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS. 5,55,920/ - TOWARDS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. JUST AND PROPER RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 2) THE APPELLANT PRAYS TO BE ALLOWED TO ADD, TO DELET E, TO ENLARGE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3 . THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4 . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND S OF APPEAL WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 1) ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THE CASE AND AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IT BE HELD THAT THE NOTICE OF DEMAND U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ISSUED BY THE A.O ON 29.09. 2011, IT NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND IS NOT EFFECTIVE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY AO IS BAD IN LAW AND NON - EFFECTIVE. JUST AND PROPER RELIEF BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE. 2) THE LEARNED TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD ERRED IN LEVYING PE NALTY OF RS.5,55,920/ - TOWARDS FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 JUST AND PROPER RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 5. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD SOLD TWO PIECES OF LAND; ONE AT TISGAON, AURANGABAD FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.45 LAKHS AND SECOND ONE AT KANCHANWADI, AURANGABAD FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.40,50,000/ - . IN RESPECT OF SALE OF LAND AT TISGAON, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF LAND AT VILLAGE TISGAON AT RS.28,21,353/ - AND HAD FURTHER CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT FOR PURCHASE O F AGRICULTURAL LAND TOTALING RS.39,28,000/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ASSESSEE NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAID CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT, SINCE THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE 3 ITA NO. 1952 /PUN/201 4 WAS NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND AS NA PERMISSION HAD BEEN RECEIVED AND THE SAID LAND COULD BE USED FOR NON - AGRICULTUR AL PURPOSE OF RESIDENTIAL USE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SINCE THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT . WHILE MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED P ENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AT RS. 5,55,920/ - , WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME. 6. THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL HAS RAISED THE ISSUE THAT IN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 2 74 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO STRIKE OFF NON - OPERATIVE PORTION AND HENCE, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT JUSTIFIED. VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FIRST REFERRED TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AND POINTED OUT THAT IN VIEW OF VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL, THE SAID PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INVALID IN LAW. HE FURT HER POINTED OUT THAT EVEN ON MERITS, THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT AND MERELY BECAUSE THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED, IT WOULD NOT ATTRACT THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IN VIEW OF DECISIONS IN CIT VS. RELIAN C E PETROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) AND PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS (P.) LTD. VS. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). 4 ITA NO. 1952 /PUN/201 4 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO THE ORDER OF PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN KANHAIYALAL D. JAIN VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS.1201 TO 1205/PN/ 2014, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 TO 2007 - 08, ORDER DATED 30.11.2016 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT MERE STRIKING OFF OF IN - OPERATIVE PORTION IN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT MAKE THE PENALTY INVALID. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE FI RST ISSUE WHICH WE TAKE UP VIDE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE INOPERATIVE PORTION HAS NOT BEEN STRUCK OFF. THE SAID ISSUE HAS BEEN DELIBERATED UPON B Y THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN KANHAIYALAL D. JAIN VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SMT. KAUSHALYA (1994) 75 TAXMAN 549 (BOM) , IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN CORRECTLY RECORDED, THEN MERELY BECAUSE INAPPROPRIATE PORTION HAS NOT BEEN STRUCK OFF IN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WOULD NOT BECOME INVALID. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DELIBERATED ELABORATELY AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION IS AS UNDER: - 20. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SMT. KAUSHALYA (SUPRA). IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT QUASHED THE PENALTY LEVIED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1967 - 68 AS THE SAME WAS IMPOSED WITHOUT AFF ORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF OTHER TWO YEARS WHERE THERE WAS NON - STRIKING OF INACCURATE PORTION, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE SAME WOULD NOT INVALIDATE THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE ALSO MADE AND REASONS FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE FULLY KNEW IN DETAIL THE EXACT CHARGE OF DEPARTMENT AGAINS T HIM, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT EITHER THERE WAS NON - APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ITO OR SO - CALLED AMBIGUITY WORDING IN THE NOTICE IMPAIRED OR PREJUDICED THE RIGHT OF ASSESSEE OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DELIBERA TED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 274 OF THE ACT WHICH CONTAINED PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE OF THE ASSESSEE BEING HEARD BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY. IT ALSO HELD THAT MERE MISTAKE IN THE LANGUAGE 5 ITA NO. 1952 /PUN/201 4 USED OR MERE NON - STRIKING OF INAPPROPRIATE PORTION COULD NOT ITSELF BE INVALIDATED THE NOTICE. IT WAS HELD THAT THE ENTIRE FACTUAL BACKGROUND WOULD FALL FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE MATTER AND NO ONE ASPECT WOULD BE DECISIVE. 21. IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1967 - 68, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SMT. KAUSHALYA (SUPRA) ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE COULD EXIST A CASE WHERE VAGUENESS AND AMBIGUITY IN THE NOTICE COULD DEMONSTRATE NON - APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AUTHORITY AND / OR ULTIMATE PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 274 OF T HE ACT. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1967 - 68 WAS ISSUED EVEN BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF EXACT CHARGE OF DEPARTMENT AGAINST HIM AS IN THE NOTICE NOT ONLY THERE WAS USE OF WORD OR BETWEEN T HE GROUP OF CASES BUT THERE WAS USE OF WORD DELIBERATELY ALSO. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT NOTICE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED NON - APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE VAGUENESS AND AMBIGUITY IN THE NOTICE HAD ALSO PREJUDICED THE RIGH T OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE HE DID NOT KNOW OF EXACT CHARGES HE HAD TO FACE. IN THIS BACKGROUND, QUASHING OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1967 - 68 WAS HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED. APPLYING THE SAID PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, APPLICATION OF MIND BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CLEARLY HELD THAT WHERE THERE IS VAGUENESS AND AMBIGUITY IN THE NOTICE ISSUED WHICH COULD DEMONSTRATE NON - APPLIC ATION OF MIND BY THE AUTHORITY WHICH IN TURN, WOULD ULTIMATELY PREJUDICE THE RIGHT OF OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING OF THE ASSESSEE AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT, THEN SUCH NOTICE IS INVALID. 10. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD TH AT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT HAD CORRECTLY INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND HAD ALSO LEVIED PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THEN MERELY BECAUSE I NAPPROPRIATE PART WAS NOT STRUCK OFF, WOULD NOT MAKE THE ASSESSEE EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 IS DISMISSED. 11. NOW, COMING TO THE MERITS OF LEVY OF PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE CLAIM OF SET OFF OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AGAINST THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE HAD BECOME NA LAND. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY, HAD FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ITS CLAIM AND MERELY BECAUSE THE SAID CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED WOU LD NOT MAKE 6 ITA NO. 1952 /PUN/201 4 THE ASSESSEE EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY . WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. RELIANE PETROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: - 7.. A GLANCE AT THIS PROVISION WOULD SUG GEST THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. PRESENT IS NOT THE CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF THE INCOME. THAT IS N OT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE EITHER. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR REVENUE SUGGESTED THAT BY MAKING INCORRECT CLAIM FOR THE EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME. AS PER LAW LEXICON, THE MEANING OF THE WO RD 'PARTICULAR' IS A DETAIL OR DETAILS (IN PLURAL SENSE); THE DETAILS OF A CLAIM, OR THE SEPARATE ITEMS OF AN ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE WORD 'PARTICULARS' USED IN THE SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE MEANING OF THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. IT IS AN ADMI TTED POSITION IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT NO INFORMATION GIVEN 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 CAN NOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ARGUED THAT 'SUBMITTING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW FOR THE EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME'. WE DO NOT THINK THAT SUCH CAN BE T HE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCERNED WORDS. THE WORDS ARE PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO THE PENALTY UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW CANNOT 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 PERS ON HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THIS COURT REFERRED TO ANOTHER DECISION OF THIS COURT IN UNION OF INDIA V. DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS [2008] 13 SCC 369, AS ALSO, THE DECISION IN UNION O F INDIA V. RAJASTHAN SPG. & WVG. MILLS [2009] 13 SCC 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 THAT THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) MUST EXIST BEFORE THE PENALTY IS IMPOSED. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME . WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. IN DILIP N. SHROFF V. JT. CIT [2007] 6 SCC 329, THIS COURT EXPLAINED THE TERMS 'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' AND '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 CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 271(1) PROVIDED FOR A DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION UPON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, INASMUCH AS THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY COULD NOT BE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY REASON OF SUCH CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME, BUT IT MAY NOT EXCEED THREE TIME S THEREOF. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE TERM 'INACCURATE PARTICULARS' WAS NOT DEFINED ANYWHERE IN THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD THAT FURNISHING OF AN ASSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY MAY NOT BY ITSELF BE FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT WA S 7 ITA NO. 1952 /PUN/201 4 FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE FOUND TO HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THAT HIS EXPLANATION IS NOT ONLY NOT BONA FIDE BUT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE 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 ESSENTIAL. IT WAS ONLY ON THE POINT OF MENS REA THAT THE JUDGMENT IN DILIP N. SHROFFS CASE (SUPRA) WAS UPSET. IN DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS CASE (SUPRA), AFTER QUOTING FROM SECTION 271 EXTENSIVELY AND ALSO CONSIDERING SECTION 271(1)(C), THE COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SINCE SECTION 271(1)(C) INDICAT ED THE ELEMENT OF STRICT LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CONCEALMENT OR FOR GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHILE FILING RETURN, THERE WAS NO NECESSITY OF MENS REA. THE COURT WENT ON TO HOLD THAT THE OBJECTIVE BEHIND ENACTMENT OF SECTION 271(1)(C) READ WIT H EXPLANATIONS INDICATED WITH THE SAID SECTION WAS FOR PROVIDING REMEDY FOR LOSS OF REVENUE AND SUCH A PENALTY WAS A CIVIL LIABILITY AND, THEREFORE, WILFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY AS WAS THE CASE IN THE MAT TER OF PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 276C OF THE ACT. THE BASIC REASON WHY DECISION IN DILIP N. SHROFFS CASE (SUPRA) WAS OVERRULED BY THIS COURT IN DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS CASE (SUPRA), WAS THAT ACCORDING TO THIS COURT THE EFFECT AND DIFFERENCE BETWEE N 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 THAT IN DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS CASE (SUPRA), NO FAULT WAS FOUND WITH THE REASONING IN THE DECISION IN DILIP N. SH ROFFS CASE (SUPRA), WHERE THE COURT EXPLAINED THE MEANING OF THE TERMS 'CONCEAL' AND 'INACCURATE'. IT WAS ONLY THE ULTIMATE INFERENCE IN DILIP N. SHROFFS CASE (SUPRA) TO THE EFFECT THAT MENS REA WAS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 2 71(1)(C) THAT THE DECISION IN DILIP N. SHROFFS 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 PARTICULARS. IN WEBSTERS DICTIONARY, THE WORD 'INACCURATE' HAS BEEN DEFINED AS : 'NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT; NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH; ERRONEOUS; AS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT, COPY OR TRANSCRIPT.' 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 THIS 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 FUR NISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 1 2 . SIMILAR PROPOSITION HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS (P.) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). APPLYING THE SAID PROPOSITIONS TO THE FACTS OF CASE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY, PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS DELETED. THE 8 ITA NO. 1952 /PUN/201 4 GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF MA Y , 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 31 ST MAY , 2017 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A), AURANGABAD ; 4. / THE CIT , AURANGABAD ; 5. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, , / ITAT, PUNE