Shobha Devi , Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

ITA 232/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1571 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2019
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K. GOPALA KRISHNA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Earning of tax free income; Wrong claim; Revised return; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 147; 148; 132; 271(1)(c); 139; 153A; 201; 274; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B , HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.NO. ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 230/H/19 2015 - 16 RAM PRAKASH NAGORI, HYDERABAD. PAN - AAUPN7314E DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERABAD. 2 231/H/19 2015 - 16 ADITYA BANSAL, HYDERABAD. PAN - AIXPB 3140R - DO - 3 232/H/19 2015 - 16 SHOBHA DEVI, HYDERABAD. PAN - ACWPD9586E - DO - ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.C. DEVDAS REVENUE BY : S HRI K . GOPALA KRISHNA DATE OF HEARING : 25 / 0 7 /201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 / 0 9 / 201 9 O R D E R PER S . RIFAUR RAHMAN , A .M. : THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) - 12, HYDERABAD, ALL DATED, 10/01/2019. AS IDENTICAL ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THE SAME WERE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND THEREFORE, DISPOSED OF THESE APPEALS BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. BRIEF FACTS AS TAKEN FROM ITA NO. 230 /HYD/201 9 IN THE CASE OF RAM PRAKASH NAGORI ARE, THE ASSESSEE , AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVES INCOM E FROM SALARY FROM M/S SREE SAI ROLLER FLOUR MILLS (P) LTD., HOUSE 2 ITA NO. 230 TO 232/H/19 RAM PRAKASH NAGORI AND OTHERS, HYD. . PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . HE ORIGINALLY FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2015 - 16 ON 28/08/2015 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 66,47,293/ - AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPT INCOME U/S 10(3 8) OF RS. 3,51,94,419/ - TOWARDS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) ON LISTED SECURITIES. 2.1 THEREAFTER, SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS U/S 132 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WERE CONDUCTED AND WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION WAS EXECUTED ON 21/01/ 2016. THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 12/04/2016 ADMITTING INCOME OF RS. 4,18,41,710/ - . IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, LTCG WAS CLAIMED U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT, WHICH LED THE AO TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271( 1)(C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED HIS INCOME TO THE EXTENT TAX WAS LEVIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF LTCG. ACCORDINGLY, VIDE ORDER DATED 09/08/2018, THE AO LEVIED PENALTY AT RS. 1,22,00,000/ - U/S 271(1)(C) RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA (P) LTD., [2013] 38 TAXMANN.COM 448 (SC). 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WHICH WERE EXTRACTED BY THE CIT(A) AT PAGES 5 TO 7 OF HIS ORDER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL , WHICH AR E COMMON IN ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION, EXCEPT THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY : 1 ) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 12, HYDERABAD [CIT (A)] IN SUSTAINING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) AT RS. 1,22,00,000 / - IS WHOLLY UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 3 ITA NO. 230 TO 232/H/19 RAM PRAKASH NAGORI AND OTHERS, HYD. . 2) THE LD . CIT (A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/ S 153A OF THE ACT ON 12/04/2016 ADMITTING AN INCOME OF RS. 4,18,41,710 / - WHICH WAS ACCEPTED AND THEREFORE, THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEA LMENT OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHATSOEVER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 53A OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) O FRS. 1,22,00,000/ - . (3) THE LD . CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALM ENT WHATSOEVER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 153A ON 12/04/2016 AS SECTION 153A TREATS A RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 153A AS A RETURN OF INCOME REQUIRED TO BE FILED U/S 139 AND THEREFORE, THE LD . CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T AT RS. 1,22,00,000 / - . (4) LD . CIT (A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE EXEMPTION U/S 10(38) WAS SURRENDERED ON THE BASIS OF A DISCUSSION WITH THE AUTHORITIES THAT NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WILL BE INITIATED / LEVIED AND THEREFORE, THE LD . CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AT RS. 1,22,00,000 / - . (5) THE LD . CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF RS. 1,22,00,000/ - WHEN THE APPELLANT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FI L ED FOR THE AY 2015 - 16 ON 28/08/2015 ADMITTE D A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 66,47,293/ - AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION OF INCOME U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT AT RS. 3,51,94,419/ - WHICH WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FLIED ORIGINALLY. (6) LD . CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NEITHER CONCEALE D THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME NOR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN SUBMISSION OF RETURN OF INCOME EITHER ORIGINALLY OR IN RESPONSE TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AT RS. 1,22,00,00 0/ - (7) THE LD . CIT (A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S 271 OF THE ACT, PROPOSING TO LEVY PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DID NOT SPECIFY IN THE NOTICE WHETHER THE CHARGES WERE FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED WAS INVALID, BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THUS, THE LD . CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT AT RS. 1 ,22,00,000/ - 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DISCLOSED THE 4 ITA NO. 230 TO 232/H/19 RAM PRAKASH NAGORI AND OTHERS, HYD. . TRANSACTION OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ITSELF AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY, AFTER THE SEARCH, ASSESSEE HAS WITHDR AWN THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(38) IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED AGAINST THE NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL/INFORMATION FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AND IT WILL NOT FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE AP HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. C IT VS. SMT. BAISETTY RAVATHI, ITTA NO. 684 OF 2016, VIDE JUDGEMENT DATED 13/07/2017. HE RELIED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE COURT IN THE SAID CASE TO SUBMIT THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA (P) LTD., (SUPRA) RELI ED ON BY THE AO IS DISTINGUISHABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE AP HIGH COURT IS THAT RELIANCE PLACED BY THE REVENUE UPON MAK DATA PVT. LTS. VS. CIT IS OF NO ASSISTANCE AS THE SUPREME COURT MERELY OBSERVED THEREIN THAT THE AO IS NOT REQUIRED TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION IN A PARTICULAR MANNER WHILE IMPOSING PENALTY OR REDUCE IT TO WRITING. THAT IS NOT THE CONTROVERSY IN THE CASE ON HAND. FURTHER, LD. AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LULLABHAI HIRABHAI, [1991] 190 ITR 427 (BOM.) 5.1 MAINLY, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. AMITA TULSYAN AND OTHERS IN ITA NO. 1513/HYD/2018 AND OTHERS VIDE ORDER DATED 10/05/2019 (WHEREIN BOTH THE MEM BERS ARE PARTY) 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE, BUT, BASED ON THE FACTS THAT IT IS A PENNY - STOCK TRANSACTION AND IT CAME TO LIGHT BECAUSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE AT LENGTH IN HER ORDER AND ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN 10(38) DEDUCTION IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED T HE PROVISIONS OF INCOME - TAX. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE 5 ITA NO. 230 TO 232/H/19 RAM PRAKASH NAGORI AND OTHERS, HYD. . IN THE CAS E OF PR. CIT VS. SMT. BAISETTY RAVATHI (SUPRA) IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. VS. ACIT, TC (APPEAL) NOS. 876 & 877 OF 2008, JUDGMENT DATED 23/04/2018. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED BOTH LIMBS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 7. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE CASE OF SMT. AMITA TULSYAN AND OTHERS (SUPRA), T HE COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER: 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE, AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN ITSELF, HAS DECLARED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES AND HAD CLAIMED THE S AME 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 TH E ASSESSMENT U/S 147 BY ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE U/S 148 AND THE ASSESSEE, IN THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HAS OFFERED THE LTCG TO TAX. THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C), IS LEVIED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, WE DO NOT FIND THAT IT IS A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, BECAUSE, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED LTCG AND HAD CLAIMED IT AS EXEMPT U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT SHARES HAVE SUFFERED STT, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY 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 CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT 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 ORDER TO BE COVERED, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF T HE 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 NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE EITHER. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED 6 ITA NO. 230 TO 232/H/19 RAM PRAKASH NAGORI AND OTHERS, HYD. . COUNSEL FO R 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 WORD 'PARTICULAR' IS A DETAIL OR DETAILS (IN PLURAL SENSE); THE DETA ILS 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 ADMITTED 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 CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE LEARN ED 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 THE 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 PERSON HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCU RATE 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 OF INDIA V. RAJASTHAN SPG. & WVG. 7 ITA NO. 230 TO 232/H/19 RAM PRAKASH NAGORI AND OTHERS, HYD. . MILLS [2009] 13 SCC 448 AND REITE RATED 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 ASS ESSEE 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 P ARTICULARS'. 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 PARTICULA RS OF INCOME, BUT IT MAY NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES 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 ITSE LF BE FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT WAS 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 NO T DISCLOSED BY HIM. IT WAS THEN HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION MUST BE PRECEDED BY A 8 ITA NO. 230 TO 232/H/19 RAM PRAKASH NAGORI AND OTHERS, HYD. . 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. SHROFF'S 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 C ONCLUSION 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 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 WITH 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 ATTRACT ING 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 THIS 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 THAT IN DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS' CASE (SUPRA), NO FAULT WAS FOUND WIT H THE REASONING IN THE DECISION IN DILIP N. SHROFF'S CASE (SUPRA), WHERE THE COURT EXPLAINED THE MEANING OF THE TERMS 'CONCEAL' AND 'INACCURATE'. IT WAS ONLY THE ULTIMATE INFERENCE IN DILIP N. SHROFF'S CASE (SUPRA) TO THE EFFECT THAT MENS REA WAS AN ESSENT IAL INGREDIENT FOR THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) THAT THE 9 ITA NO. 230 TO 232/H/19 RAM PRAKASH NAGORI AND OTHERS, HYD. . 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 PARTICULARS. IN WEBSTER'S 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 ALR EADY 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 SECT ION 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 AMOUNT TO THE INACCURATE PARTI CULARS. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, IN THE CASE BEFORE US, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE NECESSARY CONDITION FOR INITIATING AND LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) DID NOT EXIST THEREFORE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT LEVIABLE IN THE CASE BEFORE US. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALL THE OTHER CASES BEFORE US ARE BEING SIMILAR, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS DELETED IN ALL THE CASES. AS THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS MATERIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE SAID CASE , FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE 10 ITA NO. 230 TO 232/H/19 RAM PRAKASH NAGORI AND OTHERS, HYD. . PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) DO NOT ATTRACT IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C). ACCORDINGLY , THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD ARE ALLOWED. 8. AS THE FACTS AND GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 231 & 232/HYD/209 ARE SIMILAR TO ITA NO. 230/HYD/2019, FOLLOWING THE DECISION THEREIN, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED IN THESE C ASES ALSO. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - ( P. MADHAVI DEVI ) (S . RIFAUR RAHMAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 5 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 9 KV C OPY TO: - 1) RAM PRAKASH NAGORI, 2) ADITYA BANSAL, 3) SHOBHA DEVI, C/O SEKHAR & CO., CAS, 133/4, RASHTRAPATHI ROAD, SECUNDERABAD 500 026 4 ) D C IT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 ( 2 ) , AAYKAR BHAVAN, 6 TH FLOOR, F.M. ROAD, HYDERABAD 500 001. 4 ) CIT(A) 12, HYDERABAD. 5 ) PR. CIT (CENTRAL) , HYD. 6 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD. 7 ) GUARD FILE