THE ITO, WARD - 1, Srikakulam V. Agricultural Market Committee, Palakonda

ITA 409/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0142 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K SETHI
• Assessee Lawyers: B V RAO AR
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Benefit of exemption

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.389 TO 410/VIZAG/2013 & CO 104 TO 115, 119 TO 124, 134 & 135/VIZAG/2013 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, SOMPET AND OTHERS 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . . . . , . . . . , $ $ $ $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SL. NO. CASE NO. ASST. YEAR PAN NO. APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS 1 ITA 389/VIZ/2013 2005-06 AAALA 0384K ITO WARD - 2 , SRIKAKULAM AMC SOMPETA 2 CO 104/VIZ/2013 2005-06 AAALA 0384K AMC SOMPETA ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM 3 ITA 390/VIZ/2013 2006-07 AAALA 0384K ITO WARD - 2 , SRIKAKULAM AMC SOMPETA 4 CO 105/VIZ/2013 2006-07 AAALA 0384K AMC SOMPETA ITO WARD - 2 , SRIKAKULAM 5 ITA 391/VIZ/2013 2007-08 AAALA 0384K ITO WARD - 2 , SRIKAKULAM AMC SOMPETA 6 CO 106/VIZ/2013 2007-08 AAALA 0384K AMC SOMPETA ITO WARD - 2 , SRIKAKULAM 7 ITA 392/VIZ/2013 2004-05 AAKFA 8418N ITO WARD - 2 , SRIKAKULAM AMC KOTABOMMALI 8 CO 111/VIZ/2013 2004-05 AAKFA 8418N AMC KOTABOMMALI ITO WARD02, SRIKAKULAM 9 ITA 393/VIZ/2013 2005-06 AAKFA 8418N ITO WARD - 2 , SRIKAKULAM AMC KOTABOMMALI 10 CO 112/VIZ/2013 2005-06 AAKFA 8418N AMC KOTABOMMALI ITO WARD02, SRIKAKULAM 11 ITA 394/VIZ/2013 2007-08 AAKFA 8418N ITO WARD - 2 , SRIKAKULAM AMC KOTABOMMALI 12 CO 113/VIZ/2013 2005-06 AAKFA 8418N AMC KOTABOMMALI ITO WARD02, SRIKAKULAM 13 ITA 395/VIZ/2013 2005-06 AAALA 0382R ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM AMC, TEKKALI 14 ITA 396/VIZ/2013 2007-08 AAALA 0382R ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM AMC, TEKKALI ITA NOS.389 TO 410/VIZAG/2013 & CO 104 TO 115, 119 TO 124, 134 & 135/VIZAG/2013 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, SOMPET AND OTHERS 2 15 ITA 397/VIZ/2013 2007-08 AAALA 0380P ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM AMC, KANCHILI 16 CO 107/VIZ/2013 2007-08 AAALA 0380P AMC KANCHILI ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM 17 ITA 398/VIZ/2013 2004-05 AAALA 0381N ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM AMC PATHAPATNAM 18 CO 114/VIZ/2013 2004-05 AAALA 0381N AMC PATHAPATNAM ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM 19 ITA 399/VIZ/2013 2007-08 AAALA 0381N ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM AMC PATHAPATNAM 20 CO 115/VIZ/2013 2007-08 AAALA 0381N AMC PATHAPATNAM ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM 21 ITA 400/VIZ/2013 2004-05 AAALA 0385J ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM AMC SRIKAKULAM 22 CO 119/VIZ/2013 2004-05 AAALA 0385J AMC SRIKAKULAM ITO WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM 23 ITA 401/VIZ/2013 2005-06 AAALA 0385J ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM AMC SRIKAKULAM 24 ITA 120/VIZ/2013 2005-06 AAALA 0385J AMC SRIKAKULAM ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM 25 ITA 402/VIZ/2013 2006-07 AAALA 0385J ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM AMC SRIKAKULAM 26 CO 121/VIZ/2013 2006-07 AAALA 0385J AMC SRIKAKULAM ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM 27 ITA 403/VIZ/2013 2004-05 AAKFA 8419P ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM AMC ICHAPURAM 28 CO 134/VIZ/2013 2004-05 AAKFA 8419P AMC ICHAPURAM ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM 29 ITA 404/VIZ/2013 2006-07 AAKFA 8419P ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM AMC ICHAPURAM 30 CO 135/VIZ/2013 2006-07 AAKFA 8419P AMC ICHAPURAM ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM 31 ITA 405/VIZ/2013 2004-05 AAALA 0361J ITO WARD - 1, SRIKAKULAM AMC RAJAM 32 CO 122/VIZ/2013 2004-05 AAALA 0361J AMC RAJAM ITO WARD - 1, SRIKAKULAM 33 ITA 406/VIZ/2013 2006-07 AAALA 0361J ITO WARD - 1, SRIKAKULAM AMC RAJAM ITA NOS.389 TO 410/VIZAG/2013 & CO 104 TO 115, 119 TO 124, 134 & 135/VIZAG/2013 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, SOMPET AND OTHERS 3 34 CO 123/VIZ/2013 2006-07 AAALA 0361J AMC RAJAM ITO WARD - 1, SRIKAKULAM 35 ITA 407/VIZ/2013 2005-06 AAALA 0383Q ITO WARD - 1, SRIKAKULAM AMC AMADALAVALASA 36 CO 108/VIZ/2013 2005-06 AAALA 0383Q AMC AMADALAVALASA ITO WARD - 1, SRIKAKULAM 37 ITA 408/VIZ/2013 2005-06 AAALA 0599G ITO WARD - 1, SRIKAKULAM AMC PONDURU 38 CO 109/VIZ/2013 2005-06 AAALA 0599G AMC PONDURU ITO WARD - 1, SRIKAKULAM 39 ITA 409/VIZ/2013 2006-07 AAALA 0382M ITO WARD - 1, SRIKAKULAM AMC PALAKONDA 40 CO 110/VIZ/2013 2006-07 AAALA 0362M AMC PALAKONDA ITO WARD - 1, SRIKAKULAM 41 ITA 410/VIZ/2013 2005-06 AAALA 0343A ITO WARD - 1, SRIKAKULAM AMC HIRAMANDALAM 42 CO 124/VIZ/2013 2005-06 AAALA 0343A AMC HIRAMANDALAM ITO WARD - 1 SRIKAKULAM % & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. SETHI, DR ()% & / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.V. RAO, AR & , / DATE OF HEARING : 03.12.2015 & , / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.12.2015 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), VIS AKHAPATNAM AND PERTAIN TO ASST. YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08. THE CROS S APPEALS ARE FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES WHICH ARE SUPPORTIVE TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). ITA NOS.389 TO 410/VIZAG/2013 & CO 104 TO 115, 119 TO 124, 134 & 135/VIZAG/2013 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, SOMPET AND OTHERS 4 SINCE, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUE INVOLVED I S COMMON IN THESE APPEALS, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPO SED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA 389/VIZAG/2013: 2. FACTS ARE IN BRIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRIC ULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE (AMC) CREATED BY STATUTE TO REGULATE PURC HASE AND SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, LIVE STOCK AND ESTABLISHMENT OF MARKETS. THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ENJOYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(20) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE AC T) TILL THE FINANCIAL YEAR 31.03.2003. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED ITS EXCESS INCOME FOR TAXATION, ON THE GROUND THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE IS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. HOWEVER, THE A.O. BROUGHT THE EXCESS INC OME FOR TAXATION ON THE GROUND THAT W.E.F. 1.4.2003, THE ASSESSEE IS NO T ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(20) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD . CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT AS PER SECTION 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT, THE ASSES SEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION BY HOLDING THAT THE ABOVE PROVISION BROUG HT BY THE LEGISLATURE IS A RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION AND THE SAME WAS CONFI RMED BY THE ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. THE DEPARTMENT CARRIED THE MATTER I N APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITAT BEFORE THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRA DESH HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT SECTION 1 0(26AAB) OF THE ACT ITA NOS.389 TO 410/VIZAG/2013 & CO 104 TO 115, 119 TO 124, 134 & 135/VIZAG/2013 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, SOMPET AND OTHERS 5 WAS NOT RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION. SUBSEQUENTLY, A NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ISSUED ON ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALMENT OF PA RTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A DETAILED EXPLANATION B EFORE THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTI CULARS NOR HAD CONCEALED ANY INCOME, THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE DU E TO DENIAL OF BENEFIT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(20) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) AND ITAT HAVE CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT AND HELD THAT THE ABOVE PROVIS IONS WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE A.O. MAY BE DROPPED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSES SEE AND PENALTY WAS LEVIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALE D THE INCOME FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTED THE INCOM E IN THE RETURN FURNISHED FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE DET AILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE RECORDS OF THE CASE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE A LEGAL CLAIM REGARDING ENTITLEMENT TO EXEMPTION U/S 10(20) OF THE I.T. ACT. THIS CLAIM WAS FOUND LEGALLY UNTENABLE. THE VARIOUS APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAD A LSO TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 10 (26AAB) BUT THIS WAS ALSO FINALLY DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. HOWEVE R, IT WAS CONTENDED THERE WAS NO INACCURACY IN THE PARTICULARS FURNISHE D. THE AO HAD NOT ITA NOS.389 TO 410/VIZAG/2013 & CO 104 TO 115, 119 TO 124, 134 & 135/VIZAG/2013 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, SOMPET AND OTHERS 6 POINTED OUT ANY INACCURACY IN THE FURNISHING OF PAR TICULARS IN THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER. THUS, I FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCT S LTD. IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELYING ON THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT CONCEALMENT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT EXIGIBLE IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY LEVIE D OF RS.11,31,134/- IS CANCELLED. 4. REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LEGAL CLAI M I.E. WHETHER THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS EXEMPT OR NOT AND NO PENA LTY CAN BE LEVIED ON A LEGAL CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THAT HE RE LIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LT D. IN SLP(C) NO.27161 OF 2008. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RECOR DS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN TH IS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OFFERED THE EXCESS INCOME AND THER EFORE, IT IS AMOUNTING TO FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND C ONCEALMENT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. COMMISSIONER IS OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS A LEGAL CLAIM REGARDING ENTITLEMENT OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(20) OF TH E ACT, WHICH IS FOUND BY THE AO UNTENABLE DUE TO WITHDRAWAL OF THE EXEMPT ION U/S 10(20) OF ITA NOS.389 TO 410/VIZAG/2013 & CO 104 TO 115, 119 TO 124, 134 & 135/VIZAG/2013 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, SOMPET AND OTHERS 7 THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS ITAT HAS HELD T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THAT THE ABOVE PROVISO OPERATES RETROSPECTIVELY. ON APPEAL, HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IT IS ONLY PROSPECTIVE AND NOT RETROSPECTIVE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DETAILS OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME AND AFTER SUBMITTING ALL THE DETAILS, HE HAS CLAIME D THE EXEMPTION UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE EXCESS INCOME EARNED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE FOR TAXATION. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE NEIT HER FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS NOR CONCEALED THE INCOME. THEREFORE, S ECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE . 7. IN THE SIMILAR CONTEXT, HONBLE SUPREME COURT HA D CONSIDERED THE SCOPE OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED AS UN DER: '271 (1). IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSION ER (APPEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME.' A GLANCE AT THIS PROVISION WOULD SUGGEST THAT IN OR DER 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 NOT 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 WORD 'PARTICULAR' IS A DETAIL OR DETAILS (IN PLURAL SENSE); THE DETAI LS OF A CLAIM, OR THE SEPARATE ITEMS OF AN ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE WORD 'PARTICULARS' USED IN THE SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD ITA NOS.389 TO 410/VIZAG/2013 & CO 104 TO 115, 119 TO 124, 134 & 135/VIZAG/2013 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, SOMPET AND OTHERS 8 EMBRACE THE MEANING OF THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MAD E. 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 A S 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 FURNIS HING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ARGUED THAT 'SUBMITTING AN INCO RRECT CLAIM IN LAW FOR THE EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME'. WE DO NOT THINK THAT SUCH CAN BE THE INTER PRETATION 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 IMAG INATION, MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISH ING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI V. ATUL MOHAN BIN DAL (2009) 30 ('1) ITCL 339 (SC) (2009) 317 JTR I (SC) . 2009 (9) SCC 589, WHERE THI S COURT WAS CONSIDERING THE SAME PROVISION, THE COURT OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS TO BE SATISFIED THAT A PERSON 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 200 8 (13) SCC 369, AS ALSO, THE DECISION IN UNION OF 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 T HAT 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 BECAU SE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF H IS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LIABILI TY WOULD ARISE. IN DILIP N. SHROFF V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI & ANR. (2007) 16 (1) ITCL 246 (SC) : (2007) 291 1TR 519 (SC) : 2007 (6) SCC 329, THIS CO URT EXPLAINED THE TERMS 'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' AND 'FURNISHING INACC URATE PARTICULARS'. THE COURT WENT ON TO HOLD THEREIN THAT IN ORDER TO ATTR ACT 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 NO T EXCEED THREE TIMES THEREOF. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE TERM 'INACCURATE PARTICULA RS' 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 INACCU RATE 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 RELATIN G 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 INCOM E. THE COURT ULTIMATELY WENT ON ITA NOS.389 TO 410/VIZAG/2013 & CO 104 TO 115, 119 TO 124, 134 & 135/VIZAG/2013 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, SOMPET AND OTHERS 9 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 V. JO INT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI & ANR. WAS UPSET. IN UNION OF INDIA V. DHARAM ENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS (CITED SUPRA), AFTER QUOTING FROM SECTION 271 EXTEN SIVELY AND ALSO CONSIDERING SECTION 271(1)(C), THE COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SINCE SECTION 271(1)(C) INDICATED THE ELEMENT OF STRICT LIABILITY ON THE AS SESSEE 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 B EHIND 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 PEN ALTY WAS A CIVIL LIABILITY AND, THEREFORE, WILLFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSEN TIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY AS WAS THE CASE IN THE MATTER OF PR OSECUTION UNDER SECTION 276-C OF THE ACT. THE BASIC REASON WHY DECISION IN DOI, N. SH ROFF V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI & ANR. (CITED SUPRA) WAS OVERRULE D BY THIS COURT IN UNION OF INDIA V. DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS (CITED SUPRA ), WAS THAT ACCORDING TO THIS COURT THE EFFECT AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SECTION 271 (1)(C) AND SECTION 276-C OF THE ACT WAS LOST SIGHT OF IN CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI & ANR. (CITED SUPRA). HOWEVER, IT MUST BE PO INTED OUT THAT IN UNION OF INDIA V. DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS (CITED SUPRA), NO FAULT WAS FOUND WITH THE REASONING IN THE DECISION IN DILIP N. SHROFF V. JOI NT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI & ANR. (CITED SUPRA), WHERE THE COURT EXPLAI NED THE MEANING OF THE TERMS 'CONCEAL' AND INACCURATE'. IT WAS ONLY THE ULTIMATE INFERENCE IN DILIP N. SHROFF V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI & ANR. (CITED SU PRA) TO THE EFFECT THAT MENS REA WAS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR THE PENALTY UNDER S ECTION 271(1)(C) THAT THE DECISION IN DILIP N. SHROFF V. JOINT COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX, MUMBAI & ANR. (CITED SUPRA) WAS OVERRULED. 9. WE ARE NOT CONCERNED IN THE PRESENT CASE WITH TH E 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 DICTIONAR Y, 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 'PARTI CULARS' IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS JUDGMENT. READING THE WORDS IN CONJUNCTION, TH EY 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 T O BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE. SUCH NOT BEING THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO Q UESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT. A MERE MAKING O F THE CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH CLAIM MA DE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. ITA NOS.389 TO 410/VIZAG/2013 & CO 104 TO 115, 119 TO 124, 134 & 135/VIZAG/2013 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, SOMPET AND OTHERS 10 8. WE THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD . (SUPRA) SQUARELY APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AND IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) . THUS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. SO FAR AS OTHER APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS IN ITA NOS.390 TO 410/VIZAG/2013 A RE CONCERNED, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR AND THE LEGAL POSITION IS ALSO SA ME. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER CONCEALED THE INCOME NOR FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, PENALTY U/S 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE LEVIED. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE APPEALS FIL ED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 10. SO FAR AS CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES IN CO NOS.104 TO 115/VIZAG/2013, 119 TO 124/VIZAG/2013 AND 134 & 135 /VIZAG/2013 ARE CONCERNED, THESE ARE ONLY SUPPORTIVE TO THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND IN VIEW OF OUR ORDER UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE CROSS OBJECTIONS CANNOT SURVIVE AND THE SAM ARE DIS MISSED. ITA NOS.389 TO 410/VIZAG/2013 & CO 104 TO 115, 119 TO 124, 134 & 135/VIZAG/2013 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, SOMPET AND OTHERS 11 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED AND ALSO ALL THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEES ARE DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH DEC15. SD/- SD/- ( . . . . ) ( . ) ( G. MANJUNATHA) ( (( ( V. DURGA RAO ) )) ) / // / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / // / JUDICIAL MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM: 3 / DATED : 18.12.2015 VG/SPS & ( 4 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- I. % / THE APPELLANTS 1. ITO WARD - 1, SRIKAKULAM 2. ITO WARD - 2 , SRIKAKULAM II. ()% / THE RESPONDENTS 1. AMC SOMPETA 2. AMC KOTABOMMALI 3. AMC, TEKKALI 4. AMC KANCHILI 5. AMC PATHAPATNAM 6. AMC SRIKAKULAM 7. AMC ICHAPURAM 8. AMC RAJAM ITA NOS.389 TO 410/VIZAG/2013 & CO 104 TO 115, 119 TO 124, 134 & 135/VIZAG/2013 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, SOMPET AND OTHERS 12 III. 5 / THE CIT-2, VISAKHAPATNAM IV. 5 () / THE CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM V. ( , , / // / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM VI . . . . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 9: ( SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / // / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 9. AMC AMADALAVALASA 10. AMC PONDURU 11. AMC PALAKONDA 12. AMC HIRAMANDALAM