R.N.MARBLES (P) LTD., Kishangarh V. ITO, Kishangarh

ITA 762/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4902 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Revised return
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES , JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; ,O JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D L NL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHAR AT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 762/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. R.N. MARBLES (P) LTD. 5, SAVITRI SADAN. AGRASEM BHAWAN STREET, AJMER ROAD, MADANGANJ-KISHANGARH CUKE VS. THE ITO KISHANGARH LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AAACR 9817 M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SHRI R.A. VERMA, ADDL.CIT- DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 28/11/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/11/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 19-08-2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL . 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY O F PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE I.T. ACT AT RS. 5,19,507/- WI THOUT APPRECIATING THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOM E ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WERE FURNISHED. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY SO LEVIED DE SERVES TO BE DELETED. ITA NO. 762/JP/2014 M/S. R.N. MARBLES (P) LTD. VS. ITO, KISHANGARH . 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C )OF THE I.T. ACT IMPOSED ON ACCOUNT O F DIFFERENCE IN CLAIM OF EXPENSE PERTAINING TO THE CO ST OF IMPROVEMENT OF LAND IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOM E VIS-A- VIS REVISED RETURN OF INCOME, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT WAS SURRENDERED VOLUNT ARILY BY ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AFTER NOTI CING THE INADVERTENT MISTAKE HAVING OCCURRED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE, THERE BEING NO CONCEALMENT OF IN COME IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, PENALTY SO LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2.1 BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S 1 43(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO ACT). THE AO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 1,71,350/- AND CAPITAL GAIN COMPUTED BY ADOPTING THE SALE OF VALUE OF RS. 60 LACS IN PLACE OF RS. 50,28,750/- AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED COMPUTATION THEREBY HE S URRENDERED A SUM OF RS. 12,50,630/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE FOR IMP ROVEMENT OF LAND WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE VOUCHERS. THE AO WHI LE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ALSO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U /S 271(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY ON THE ADDI TION CONFIRMED AT RS. 5,19,507/-. ITA NO. 762/JP/2014 M/S. R.N. MARBLES (P) LTD. VS. ITO, KISHANGARH . 3 2.2 ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER PREFERRED APPE AL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL THEREBY A PENALTY ON SUM OF RS. 15,50,630/- WAS CON FIRMED. HOWEVER, THE PENALTY LEVIED ON THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF SALE V ALUE WAS DELETED. 2.3 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PR ESENT APPEAL. 2.4 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS NOTICED TH AT THE APPEAL WAS BARRED BY 7 DAYS OF DELAY AND AN APPLICATION FOR CO NDATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BY LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISS IONS AS MADE IN THE APPLICATION AND AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE CONT ENTS OF THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED. 2.5 THE LD. DR HAS OPPOSED THE CONONDATION APPLICAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE AVERMENT IN THE AFFIDAVIT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REASONABLE CAUSE IN FILI NG THE PRESENT APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED, THE APPEAL IS TAK EN UP FOR HEARING. 3.1 THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS AG AINST CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 5,19,507/- U/S 271(1) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 762/JP/2014 M/S. R.N. MARBLES (P) LTD. VS. ITO, KISHANGARH . 4 3.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTI FIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATE D THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN BRIEF. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PE NALTY IS CONFIRMED ON THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOR WANT OF SUPPORTING VOUCHERS THE AMOUNT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MERELY OFFERING THE AMOUN T FOR TAXATION WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO BRING SUCH SURRENDER WITHIN THE AMBI T OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAD DELETED THE PENALTY FOR WHICH HE PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUMITRA DEVI AGARWAL IN ITA NO. 687/JP /2011 (ITAT JAIPUR BENCH). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACE D IN RELIANCE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES. (I) CIT VS. ASHOK THAKER, 170 TAXMAN 471 (DELHI HI GH COURT), (II) CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS P. LTD. 322 IT R 158 (SC) AND (III) CIT VS. SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL, 251 ITR 9 (SC ) THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OPERATE IN DIFF ERENT FIELDS MERELY BECAUSE THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WOULD NOT BE ITA NO. 762/JP/2014 M/S. R.N. MARBLES (P) LTD. VS. ITO, KISHANGARH . 5 SUFFICIENT FOR THE AO TO LEVY PENALTY. THE AO HAS T O GIVE A FINDING WHETHER THE LAPSE IS BONA FIDE OR IS DONE WITH A VI EW TO AVOIDING TAXATION. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE CLAIM FOR IMPROVEMENT OF L AND WAS MADE BUT THE FACTS REMAINS THAT THE IMPROVEMENT WAS MADE ON THE LAND. HOWEVER, DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF VOUCHERS AT THE POINT OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE THOUGHT IT PROPER TO OFFER THE SAME AMOUNT FOR TAXATION TO AVOID LITIGATION AND TO BUY PEACE OF MIND. 3.3 ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR OPPOSED THE SUBMISS ION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT SURREND ER IS NOT BONA FIDE OR VOLUNTARY THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT GET THE BENEFIT AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RIGHTLY DELETED THIS BENEFIT . IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE LD. DR PLACED FOLLOWING CASE LAWS. (I) MAK DATA P LTD. VS. CIT, 358 ITR 539 (SC) (II) BADRI PRASAD OM PRAKASH VS. CIT, 163 ITR 440 ( RAJ.) 3.4 IN REJOINDER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THESE JUDGEMENTS RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR WOULD NOT APPLY ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF MAK DATA P LTD. VS. CIT, 358 ITR 539 (SC) MAY HE LP THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 762/JP/2014 M/S. R.N. MARBLES (P) LTD. VS. ITO, KISHANGARH . 6 3.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE TH ROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE OBSERVATION OF THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA P LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) IS AS U NDER:- 6 . WE HAVE HEARD COUNSEL ON EITHER SIDE. WE FULLY CO NCUR WITH THE VIEW OF THE HIGH COURT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HA S NOT PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD OR APPRECIATED THE SCOPE OF EXP LANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH READS AS F OLLOWS : 'EXPLANATION 1.WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATER IAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PERSO N UNDER THIS ACT, (A) SUCH PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OF FERS AN EXPLA NATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER TO BE FA LSE, OR (B) SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS N OT ABLE TO SUB STANTIATE AND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANAT ION IS BONA FIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AN D MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCL OSED BY HIM, THEN THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTI NG THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSON AS A RESULT THEREOF SHA LL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (C) OF THIS SUB-SECTION, BE DEEM ED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULAR S HAVE BEEN CONCEALED.' 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN OUR VIEW, SHALL NOT BE CARRIED AWAY BY THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE LIKE 'VOLUNTARY DI SCLOSURE', 'BUY PEACE', 'AVOID LITIGATION', 'AMICABLE SETTLEME NT', ETC., TO EXPLAIN AWAY ITS CONDUCT. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER T HE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION FOR CONCEALMEN T OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271(1) RAISES A PRESUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT, WHEN A DIFFERENCE IS NO TICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BETWEEN REPORTED AND ASSESSE D INCOME. THE BURDEN IS THEN ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW OTHERWISE, BY COGENT AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE. WHEN TH E INITIAL ONUS PLACED BY THE EXPLANATION, HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY HIM, ITA NO. 762/JP/2014 M/S. R.N. MARBLES (P) LTD. VS. ITO, KISHANGARH . 7 THE ONUS SHIFTS ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE AMO UNT IN QUESTION CONSTITUTED THE INCOME AND NOT OTHERWISE. 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY STATED THAT HE HAD SURREND ERED THE ADDITIONAL SUM OF RS. 40,74,000 WITH A VIEW TO AVOID LITIGATION, BUY PEACE AND TO CHANNELIZE THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES TOWARDS PRODUCTIVE WORK AND TO MAKE AMICA BLE SETTLEMENT WITH THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. THE STAT UTE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THOSE TYPES OF DEFENCES UNDER EX PLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE DOES NOT RELEASE THE APPELLANT -ASSESSEE FROM THE MISCHIEF OF PENAL PROCEEDINGS. THE LAW DOE S NOT PROVIDE THAT WHEN AN ASSESSEE MAKES A VOLUNTARY DIS CLOSURE OF HIS CONCEALED INCOME, HE HAD TO BE ABSOLVED FROM PENALTY. 9. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SURRENDER OF INCOME IN THIS CASE IS NOT VOLUNTARY IN THE SENSE THAT THE OFFER O F SURRENDER WAS MADE IN VIEW OF DETECTION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE SISTER CONCERN OF TH E ASSESSEE. IN THAT SITUATION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SURRE NDER OF INCOME WAS VOLUNTARY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS NOTICED THAT C ERTAIN DOCUMENTS COMPRISING SHARE APPLICATION FORMS, BANK STATEMENTS, MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF COMPANIES, AFFIDAVITS, COPIES OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS AND ASSESS MENT ORDERS AND BLANK SHARE TRANSFER DEEDS DULY SIGNED, HAVE BEEN IMPOUNDED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 133A CONDUCTED ON DECEMBER 16, 2003, IN THE CASE OF A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SURVEY WAS COND UCTED MORE THAN 10 MONTHS BEFORE THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS R ETURN OF INCOME. HAD IT BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF ITS INCOME, IT WOULD HA VE FILED THE RETURN DECLARING AN INCOME INCLUSIVE OF THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS SURRENDERED LATER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO DECLARE ITS TRUE INCOME. IT IS THE STATUTORY DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO RECORD ALL ITS TRANSACTIONS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PAYMENTS MADE BY IT AND TO DECLARE ITS TRUE INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY IT FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN OUR VIEW, HAS RECORDED A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT HE WAS SATI SFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED TRUE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME AND IS ITA NO. 762/JP/2014 M/S. R.N. MARBLES (P) LTD. VS. ITO, KISHANGARH . 8 LIABLE FOR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271 RE AD WITH SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO SATISFY WHETHER TH E PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BE INITIATED OR NOT DURING THE COURSE O F THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT REQUIRED TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION IN A PARTICULAR MANNER OR REDUCE IT INTO WRITING. THE SCOPE OF SECTION 271(1) (C) HAS ALSO BEEN ELABORATELY DISCUSSED BY THIS COURT IN UNION O F INDIA V. DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS [2008] 13 SCC 369 AN D CIT V. ATUL MOHAN BINDAL [2009] 9 SCC 589. 11. THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT, IN OUR V IEW, HAS BEEN CORRECTLY FOLLOWED BY THE REVENUE AND WE FIND NO ILLEGALITY IN THE DEPARTMENT INITIATING PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS IN THE INSTANT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, FULLY AGREE WITH T HE VIEW OF THE HIGH COURT. HENCE, THE APPEAL LACKS MERIT AND IS DISMISSED. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT BUT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FILE D THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME THEREBY THE ASSESSEE SURRENDE RED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 12,50,630/- FOR NON-AVAILABILITY OF VOUCHERS. THE U NDISPUTED FACTS REMAINS THAT TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE O N ACCOUNT OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT AT RS. 25,22,637/-. THE AO ACCEPTED THE REVISED COMPUTATION BY RESTRICTING THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT AT RS. 12,72,007/-. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BOGUS. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE VOUCHERS, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE AO HAD DETECTED THE EXCESSIVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE AO NOTICED ITA NO. 762/JP/2014 M/S. R.N. MARBLES (P) LTD. VS. ITO, KISHANGARH . 9 THAT THE VOUCHERS WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSES SEE. THE AO NEITHER IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS NOR IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS HAS GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT A NY IMPROVEMENT ON THE LAND. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE SURREN DER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS VOLUNTEER WHO DESERVES THE BENEFIT OF E XPLANATION OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HELD POR TION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961,SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE C OVERED BY IT, 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. THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. WHERE NO INF ORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INA CCURATE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCU RATE PARTI- CULARS. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO PENALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENA LTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHIN G WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BECAU SE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH TH E PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS AR E FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRAC T PENALTY, THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE , NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS . WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORREC T OR ITA NO. 762/JP/2014 M/S. R.N. MARBLES (P) LTD. VS. ITO, KISHANGARH . 10 ERRONEOUS OR FALSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) . A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FU RNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DELIBERATIONS AND FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE PEN ALTY. HENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 -11-201 6. SD/- SD/- HKKXPUN DQY HKKJR ( BHAGCHAND) (KUL BHARAT) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL; / JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 30 /11/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S. R.N. MARBLES (P) LTD. ,KISHANG ARH 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, KISHANGARH 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 762/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR