PRAKASH RAJ BHANSALI, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

ITA 508/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3698 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: H M SINGHVI
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Wrong claim; TDS
• Section: 271(1)(c); 50C; 2(14); 142(1); 10

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,A JAIPUR JH JESK LH0 KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PA L RAO, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 508/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI PRAKASH RAJ BHANSALI, A-60, SHANTI PATH, TILAK NAGAR, JAIAPUR. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-2(1) JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAYPB 1352 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H.M. SINGHVI (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/02/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05/03/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A), KOTA ARISING FROM THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED AO WENT WRONG IN INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 274 WITHOUT STRIKING THE SPE CIFIC LIMB IN THE ITA NO. 508/JP/2018 SHRI PRAKASH RAJ BHANSALI VS. ITO 2 NOTICE FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHICH IS BAD IN LA W. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) WENT WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) FOR RS. 1500000/- WHICH IS BAD IN LAW, AND ON FACTS. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, A MEND OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIM E OF HEARING. 2. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF PENALTY OR DER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF DEFECTIVE INI TIATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING NOTICED U/S 274 OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR O F THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE LIMB WHETH ER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT STRIKE OFF THE IRREL EVANT PART OF THE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE N OTICE DATED 22.03.2016 ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS PROPOSED TO LEVY THE PENALTY ON UNC ERTAIN CHARGES OF CONCEALMENT PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, INITIATION OF PENALTY IS NOT VAL ID AND CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE D ECISION OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING ITA NO. 508/JP/2018 SHRI PRAKASH RAJ BHANSALI VS. ITO 3 FACTORY 359 ITR 565 AS WELL AS IN CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS 73 TAXMANN.COM 241 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS FOLLOWED THE EARLIER DECIS ION IN CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA). THE S. L.P. FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATA KA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS HAS B EEN DISMISSED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 73 TAXMANN.COM 24 8. THE LD. AR HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN CASE OF SHRI T. ASHOK PAI VS. CIT 292 ITR 11 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME O R FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME CARRY DIFFERENT CO NNOTATIONS. THEREFORE, THE AO IS REQUIRED TO MAKE SPECIFIC CHARGES ON WHIC H THE PENALTY WAS INTENDED TO BE IMPOSED. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SAMSON PERINCHERY 392 ITR 4. THE LD. AR HAS THEN REFERRED TO VARIOUS DECISIONS O F THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE POINT THAT PENALTY ORD ER PASSED BY THE AO BASED ON DIFFERENT CHARGES IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS NOT VALID. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS RECORDED THE SATISFACTION THAT IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE ITA NO. 508/JP/2018 SHRI PRAKASH RAJ BHANSALI VS. ITO 4 PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO UNCE RTAINTY OF CHARGES AT THE TIME OF RECORDING THE SATISFACTION IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED OR DER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS AGAIN SPECIFIED THE CHARGES AS FURNISHI NG INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE SH OW CAUSE NOTICE CONTAINS BOTH CHARGES WITHOUT STRIKING OFF THE IRRE LEVANT PART WILL NOT VITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS . 72,20,436/- ARISING FROM SALE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 0 1.10.2013 AND THEREAFTER A REVISED E-RETURN WAS FILED ON 18.11.20 13 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE APART FROM CLAIMING THE LOSS HAS CLAIMED E XEMPTION U/S 10 IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME ARISING FROM SALE OF AGRICULT URAL LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONDUCTED AN ENQUIRY FROM THE CON CERN TESHILDAR AND FOUND THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION DOES NOT FALL IN TH E EXCLUSION CLAUSE OF SECTION 2(14) OF INCOME-TAX ACT AND THEREFORE, IT W AS TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSET BY THE AO. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U /S 142(1) THE ITA NO. 508/JP/2018 SHRI PRAKASH RAJ BHANSALI VS. ITO 5 ASSESSEE OFFERED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO TAX. THUS, IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE RECORD THAT BEFORE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 04.09.2014 . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DECLARED THE TRANSFER OF SALE OF LAND IN QU ESTION FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 85,53,355/- IN THE REVISED RET URN OF INCOME FILED ON 18.11.2013. THUS, IT IS A CLAIM OF EXEMPTION MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME DERIVED FROM SALE OF THE AGRI CULTURAL LAND. THE AO HELD THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AS IT IS WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY LIMI TS AS PER REPORT OF THE TESHILDAR AND CONSEQUENTLY THE GAIN ARISING FROM TH E SALE TRANSACTION WAS ASSESSED TO TAX AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 83,49,000/- U/S 50C AS AGAINST THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 83,48,000/-. THE INCREASED OF RS. 1,000/- BY THE AO IN THE FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION DOES NOT AMOUNT EITHER CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS O F INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SO FAR AS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPT U/S 10 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT TH E SAID CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY THE AO BASED ON THE REPORT OF THE TESHI LDAR AND HELD THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION FALLS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LI MITS OF MUNICIPALITY AREA. ONCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE SALE TRA NSACTION AND SALE ITA NO. 508/JP/2018 SHRI PRAKASH RAJ BHANSALI VS. ITO 6 CONSIDERATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF RECOR DING THE SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS STATED IN PARA 9 AS UND ER:- 9. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME FOR W HICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS INITIATED, SEPARATELY. WITH THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER:- RUPEES 1. TOTAL INCOME AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ITR DATED 18/11/2013 NIL ADD: I) UNDISCLOSED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE 72,20,436/- 72,20,436/- TOTAL 72,20,436/- ROUNDED OFF 72,20,440/- ASSESSED AT RS. 72,20,440/- PREPARED & ISSUED ITNS- 150 FORMING PART OF THIS ORDER. CHARGES INTEREST AS PER THE RUL ES. ALLOWED CREDIT FOR TDS/PREPAID TAXES AFTER VERIFICATION. IS SUED NOTICE OF DEMAND U/S 156 AND NECESSARY CHALLAN. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOM E AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME FOR WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE INITIATED, SEPARATELY. ITA NO. 508/JP/2018 SHRI PRAKASH RAJ BHANSALI VS. ITO 7 THEREFORE, THE AO RECORDED THE SATISFACTION THAT IT IS A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WILL NOT IMPACT THE IMPUGNED ORDER SO FAR AS IT IS NOT GIVING THE CORRECT CHARGE OR BREACH COMMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE AO IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)( C) HAS STATED AS UNDER:- WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE C ONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS NOT CERTAIN ABOUT THE CHARGE WHETHER IT IS A CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SINCE, ONLY ONE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, THEREF ORE, THE POSSIBILITY OF MORE THAN ONE DEFAULT IS RULED OUT. THE ASSESSING O FFICER WHILE PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE REFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FINALLY GIVEN A DEFINITE FINDING THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HENCE, THE CASE OF THE ITA NO. 508/JP/2018 SHRI PRAKASH RAJ BHANSALI VS. ITO 8 ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY WHERE THE IN ITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS ON ONE CHARGE AND LEVY OF PENALTY ON ANOTHER CHARGE OR IN THE CASE WHETHER THE INITIATION OF PENALTY IS ON UNCERTAIN CHARGES BUT LEVY OF PENALTY IS ON WRONG CHARGES. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE THIRD MEMBER OF AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE O F HPCL MITTAL ENERGY LTD. VS. ACIT 97 TAXMANN.COM 3. ONCE, THE AO HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY ON UNCERTAIN CHARGES WHICH IS MADE GOOD WITH DEFINITE FINDING WHILE PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER THEN IT IS A VALID PENALTY ORDER. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE THIRD MEMBER OF THE TR IBUNAL OF AMRITSAR BENCH IN CASE OF HPCL MITTAL ENERGY LTD. VS. ACIT ( SUPRA) IN PARA 21 TO 23 IS AS UNDER:- 21. APART FROM THE ABOVE THREE SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE AO HAS CLEAR-CUT SATISFACTION, THERE CAN BE ANOTHER FO URTH SITUATION AS WELL. IT MAY BE WHEN IT IS DEFINITELY A CASE OF UND ER-REPORTING OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH AN ADDITION/DISALL OWANCE HAS BEEN MADE, BUT THE AO IS NOT SURE AT THE STAGE OF I NITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRECISE CHARGE AS TO 'CO NCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME' OR 'FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME'. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, HE MAY USE SLASH BE TWEEN THE TWO EXPRESSIONS AT THE TIME OF INITIATION OF PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, HE MUST GE T DECISIVE, WHICH SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE PENALTY ORDER, AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF 'CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS O F INCOME' OR 'FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOM E'. UNCERTAIN CHARGE AT THE TIME OF INITIATION OF PENALTY, MUST N ECESSARILY BE SUBSTITUTED WITH A CONCLUSIVE DEFAULT AT THE TIME O F PASSING THE ITA NO. 508/JP/2018 SHRI PRAKASH RAJ BHANSALI VS. ITO 9 PENALTY ORDER. IF THE PENALTY IS INITIATED WITH DOU BT AND ALSO CONCLUDED WITH A DOUBT AS TO THE CONCEALMENT OF PAR TICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF S UCH INCOME ETC., THE PENALTY ORDER IS VITIATED. IF ON THE OTHER HAND , IF THE PENALTY IS INITIATED WITH AN UNCERTAIN CHARGE OF 'CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME/FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME' ETC., BUT THE ASSESSEE IS ULTIMATELY FOUND TO BE GUILTY OF A SPECIFIC CHARGE OF EITHER 'CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME' OR 'FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME', THEN NO FAULT CA N BE FOUND IN THE PENALTY ORDER. 22. IN MANU ENGINEERING WORKS (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT NOTICED THAT THE CHARGE AT THE STAGE OF INITI ATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AS WELL IN THE PENALTY ORDER WAS UNCERT AIN AND THE EXPRESSION USED AT BOTH THE STAGES WAS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND/OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULA RS OF SUCH INCOME. IT STRUCK DOWN THE PENALTY BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE GUILTY OF A CERTAIN CHAR GE IN THE PENALTY ORDER. IT, HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND ANYTHING AMISS WIT H THE INITIATION OF PENALTY ON SUCH UNCERTAIN CHARGE, WHICH IS VIVID FR OM THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS : 'WE FIND FROM THE ORDER OF THE IAC, IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THAT IS, THE FINAL CONCLUSION AS EXPRESSED IN PARA. 4 OF THE ORDER: 'I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IT WILL HAVE TO BE SAID THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD CONCEALED ITS INCOME AND/OR THAT IT HAD FINISHED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME'. NOW, THE LANGUAGE OF ' AND/OR' MAY BE PROPER IN ISSUING A NOTICE AS TO PENALTY ORDER OR F RAMING OF CHARGE IN A CRIMINAL CASE OR A QUASI-CRIMINAL CASE, BUT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE IAC TO COME TO A POSITIVE FINDING AS TO WH ETHER THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER AN Y INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE.' 23. IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT UNCERTAIN CHARGE AT THE ST AGE OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CAN BE MADE GOOD WITH A CLEA R-CUT CHARGE IN ITA NO. 508/JP/2018 SHRI PRAKASH RAJ BHANSALI VS. ITO 10 THE PENALTY ORDER. IN ANY CASE, EXISTENCE OF A CLEA R-CUT CHARGE IN PENALTY ORDER IS A MUST SO AS TO VALIDATE ANY PENAL TY ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE FOLLOWING THE ABOVE CITED DECISION THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. ON MERITS:- ONCE, IT IS A CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10 OF THE ACT AND THE AO HAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THE PRIMARY FACTS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS WELL AS CAPITA L ASSET IN QUESTION IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND BUT ONLY ON THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE AO THROUGH CONCERNED TESHILDAR IT WAS FOUND THAT THE L AND IN QUESTION DOES NOT FALL IN THE EXCLUSION CLAUSE OF SECTION 2(14) O F THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT IS A HIGHLY DEBATABLE ISSUE AND THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE IS BASED ON THE PRIMARY FACTS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WOULD BE R EGARDED AS BONAFIDE CLAIM. HENCE, THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION THOUGH REJECTE D BY THE AO WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER FOUND TO BE B OGUS NOR ABSOLUTELY IMPERMISSIBLE BUT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14 ) AND PARTICULARLY THE ISSUE WHETHER THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WILL BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND OR A CAPITAL ASSET IN TERMS OF SE CTION 2(14) OF THE ACT WAS SUBJECTED TO THE OUTCOME OF THE ENQUIRY CONDUCT ED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE SAID CLAIM MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IS ITA NO. 508/JP/2018 SHRI PRAKASH RAJ BHANSALI VS. ITO 11 DISALLOWANED BY THE AO WOULD NOT ATTRACT THE PENALT Y PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 158 HA S HELD THAT WHERE THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND TO BE INCORRECT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ME RELY MAKING A WRONG CLAIM DOES NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE ABSENCE OF FINDING THAT ANY DETAIL SU PPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INCORRECT OR FALSE. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIE W OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME IS DELET ED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/03/2019. SD/- SD/- JESK LH0 KEKZ FOT; IKY JKO (RAMESH. C. SHARMA) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 05/03/2019. * SANTOSH. ITA NO. 508/JP/2018 SHRI PRAKASH RAJ BHANSALI VS. ITO 12 VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI PRAKASH RAJ BHANSALI, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-2(1), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 508/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR