SHRI PIYUSH SHARMA, Bhopal V. THE ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

ITA 9/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0396 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S S DESHPANDE
• Keywords: Business income; Peak credit; Onus to prove
• Section: 44AD; 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, J.M. AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, A.M. I.T.A.NO. 09/IND/2015 A.Y. : 2006-07 SHRI PIYUSH SHARMA, ACIT,3(1), 190, SECTOR B, INDRAPURI, VS. BHOPAL BHOPAL. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. AWZPS646P APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.S.DESHPANDE, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.A.VERMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 01 . 0 6 .201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 . 0 7 .201 5 -: 2: - 2 O R D E R PER GARASIA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, BHOPAL, DATED 09.10.2014 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION OF WA TER CANALS AS SUB CONTRACTOR. RETURN HAS BEEN FILED ON 30.10.2 006 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 18,09,376/- FROM TOTAL CONT RACTUAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 6,11,92,019/-. VIDE ORDER DATED 26. 2.2008 PASSED U/S 143(3), AO HAS REJECTED ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HAS ESTIMATED ASSESSEES NET PROFIT @ 5 % OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND HAS ACCORDINGLY ASSESSED HIS INCOME AT RS. 30,59,600/- RESULTING INTO ADDITION OF RS. 12,5 0,224/- IN ASSESSEES HANDS. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY OF RS. 5 L ACS HAS BEEN IMPOSED. 3. THE MATTER CARRIED TO LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HA S DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. -: 3: - 3 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPL ETED BY REJECTING BOOK RESULT AND THE NET PROFIT WAS ESTIMA TED @ 5% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PURCHA SES RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE FOUND RELIABL E AND NOT SHOWING TRUE AND CORRECT STATE OF HIS AFFAIRS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASE, WHICH WAS RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOU NT, BUT ONE OF THE SUPPLIERS HAS GIVEN A STATEMENT THAT HE HAS SUPPLIED THE MATERIAL WORTH RS. 40,840/- AS AGAINST IT WAS SHOWN PURCHASE OF RS. 2,18,437/- AND ONE OF THE SUP PLIERS DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE REGARDING PURCHASES OF SAME. THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REJECTED. THE ASSE SSEE HA SUBMITTED ALL THESE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO. WHILE FILING THE RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THIS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO AND WHICH WAS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE. -: 4: - 4 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE FIVE CREDITORS OUT OF WHI CH ONE CREDITOR WAS REMAINED PRESENT. REGARDING THE TOTAL PURCHASE, COPY OF DELIVERY CHALLAN WAS FILED REGARDING THIS C LAIM, BUT ONE OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN MADE HAVE BEEN GIVEN A STATEMENT BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSES SEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN ANY RIGHT OF CROSS-EXAMI NATION REGARDING SALE AND PURCHASE. ALL THE DETAILS OF THE SUPPLIERS WERE SUBMITTED, BUT THE SUPPLIER COULD NOT BE TRACE D OUT. THEREFORE, THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED. MOREOVER, THE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED AS PER THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICITONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SH IVNARAYAN JAMNALAL AND CO., (1998) 232 ITR 311 (M.P.), WHEREI N IT WAS HELD IF THE REJECTION OF BOOKS AND ESTIMATION OF PR OFIT BY APPLYING FLAT RATE, THERE WAS NO FRAUD OR GROSS OR WILLFUL NEGLECT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE IMPOSED. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SANGRUR VANASPATI MILLS LIMITED, (2008) 303 ITR 53 ( P & H ), WHERE I N IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN SOME ORIGINAL BILLS WERE TURNED DOWN AND PROFIT WAS -: 5: - 5 ESTIMATED, THE ADDITION CAN BE SUSTAINED, BUT IT CA NNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME. 6. THE LD. SENIOR D.R. RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF M.P . HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT VS. CHIRAG METAL ROLLING MILLS LTD, (2008) 305 ITR 0029, WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT WHERE THERE IS PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C), THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS PRIMARILY UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEA LMENT AND THE LD. SENIOR D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT ORDER TH E HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF K.P.MADHUSU DAN AND SUBMITTED THAT WHENEVER ANY EXPLANATION IS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS THE BURDEN OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE BONA FIDE ANY PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. SENIOR D.R. A LSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. KRISHNA COMPANY AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO THE ADDITION OF PEAK CREDIT AND INTEREST THEREON AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT IT IS HIS OWN INCOME, NO FURTHER EVIDENCE WILL BE NECESSA RY TO SHOW THAT IT WAS HIS INCOME AND PENALTY IS TO BE IMPOSED . 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT IN SECTION 271(1)(C), THE PO SITION OF LAW -: 6: - 6 REGARDING LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) HAS UNDERGO NE A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE AFTER INSERTION OF EXPLANATION I TO SECTION 271(1)(C) WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.1976. EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) RAISES A PRESUMPTION THAT AS AND WHEN ANY AMOUNT IS ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOM E, THE SAME SHALL BE DEEMED OR REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RES PECT OF WHICH THE PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. FURTHER WITH EFFECT FROM 10.9.1986 AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO EXPLANATI ON 1(B) TO SECTION 271(1)(C), AFTER THIS AMENDMENT FUR THER ONUS HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT EXPLA NATION FURNISHED BY HIM WAS BONA FIDE. THE POSITION NOW IS THAT UNLESS AND UNTIL THE ASSESSEE SUBSTANTIATES THE EXP LANATION AND PROVES THAT THE EXPLANATION WAS BONA FIDE, THE ADDITION MADE TO HIS INCOME SHALL BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE CONCEALED INCOME. ON ANALYSIS OF PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 271(1)(C), IT IS OBSERVED THAT EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC TION 271(1)(C) PROVIDES THE SITUATION, WHERE NO EXPLANATION FOR TH E FAILURE IS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHERE THE EXPLANATION TH AT HAS BEEN OFFERED IS FOUND TO BE FALSE OR WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABOUT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM. IN ALL THE -: 7: - 7 CASES, THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSONA SHALL BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE PARTICULARS HAVE BEE N CONCEALED. AS PER PROVISO TO THIS EXPLANATION, THE ONUS TO ESTABLISH THAT EXPLANATION OFFERED WAS BONA FIDE AN D FACTS RELATING TO SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS INCOME EVEN DISCLOSED BY HIM WILL BE ON THE PERSONS CHARGED FOR CONCEALMENT. AS PER THE PROVISIONS 2 TO EXPLANA TION 1(B) NOW THE ENTIRE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO NOT ONLY OFFER AN EXPLANATION BUT ALSO TO SUBSTANTIATE IT AND TO PROV E THE PRESUMPTION WAS BONA FIDE. AT THE SAME TIME THE PRE SUMPTION SO RAISED BY THE EXPLANATION 1 IS REBUTTABLE. THE E FFECT IS THAT UNLESS AND UNTIL REBUTS THE PRESUMPTION, HE WOULD B E LIABLE TO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IT IS NOW ESTABLISHED LAW THAT PRESUMPTION WOULD NOT STAND RE BUTTED MERELY BY FURNISHING ANY GENERAL OR FANTASTIC OR FA NCIFUL OR UNREASONABLE EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE, THE EXPLA NATION SHOULD BE BASED ON COGENT AND RELEVANT MATERIAL AND SHOULD BE ACCEPTED TO THE AUTHORITIES. THE EXPRESSION FU RNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAS BEEN NOT DEFI NED IN THE -: 8: - 8 ACT. THE EXPRESSION INACCURATE REFERS TO NOT ONL Y IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FACT OR TRUTH AND THAT IS AMEND MENT, WHICH IS RELEVANT IN THE CONTEXT OF FURNISHING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS. THE MEANING BY FURNISHING INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME IMPLIES FURNISHING OF DETAILS OR INFORMAT ION ABOUT THE INCOME WHICH ARE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FAC T OR TRUTH. THE DETAILS OR INFORMATION ABOUT INCOME DEALS WHICH ARE FACTUAL DETAIL OF INCOME AND THIS CANNOT BE EXTENDE D TO THE AREA, WHICH ARE SUBJECTIVE SUCH AS STATUS OF TAXABI LITY OF INCOME, ADMISSIBILITY OF DEDUCTION AND INTERPRETATI ON OF LAW. FURNISHING OF INACCURATE INFORMATION, THUS, RELATES TO FURNISHING THE FACTUAL INCORRECT DETAILS AND INFORM ATION ABOUT THE INCOME. THE ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF A CLAIM S UBJECT TO EXERCISE AND WHETHER THE CLAIM IS ACCEPTED OR REJEC TED HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME. RAISING A LEGAL CLAIM, EVEN IF IT IS ULTIMA TELY FOUND TO BE LEGALLY UNACCEPTABLE CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WE FIND THAT, IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A BONA FIDE LEGAL CLAIM, WHIC H WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE TAX AUTHORITY OR JUDICIAL AUTHORITY . WE FIND -: 9: - 9 THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE A UTHORITY, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACC URATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJASTHAN SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS REPORTED IN (2009) 13 SCC 448, CONSIDERED THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA AND ORS VS. DHARMENDRA TEXTILES PROCESSORS & ORS., REPORTED IN (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) AND HELD THAT IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT FOR APPLI CABILITY OF SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT, CONDITION STATED THER EIN MUST EXIST. THE ABOVE SAID DECISION CAME UP FOR CONSIDER ATION IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT., LTD., REPORTED IN (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). ON READING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) , THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT POINTED OUT THAT IN ORDER TO BRING THE CASE U NDER SECTION 271(1)(C), 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. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO PENALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENALTY -: 10: - 10 PROVISION COULD NOT BE INVOKED. THUS, THE HON'BLE S UPREME COURT POINTED OUT THAT A MERE MAKING OF CLAIM, WHIC H IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE READING OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BL E SUPREME COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE, THUS POINTS OUT THAT FOR S USTAINING PENALTY, THE BONA FIDE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE MUST BE LOOKED AT, SO THAT THE CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUSTAINING THE PENALTY WOULD BE TAKEN AS CONDITION THAT IS THE MAIN REQUIREMENT UND ER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO THE DECI SION IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS, (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT POINTED OUT THAT IN THE BACKG ROUND OF SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO NECESS ITY OF MENS REA BEING SHOWN BY THE REVENUE, HOWEVER REFERRING TO TH E EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271(L)(C) PENALTY BEING A MULTIPLE LIABILITY, THE BONA FIDE OF THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSE SSEE NECESSARILY ASSUMES SIGNIFICANT EVEN THOUGH WILLFUL NESS OF THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE A CRITERIA, THE CONDUCT IS TO BE CONSIDERED. THUS, A MERE FACT THAT THE ADDITION IN THIS CASE -: 11: - 11 HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT BY ITSELF WOULD NO T LEAD TO THE AUTOMATIC APPLICATION TO SECTION 271(L). 8. WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2006. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3). DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, SOME BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE. THE SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO SOME OF THE PERSONS AND THE AO HAS FOUND THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RELIABLE AND THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DID NOT GIVE TH E TRUE PICTURE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND CORRECT PROFIT CAN NOT BE ASCERTAINED, THEREFORE, THE BOOKS WERE REJECTED U/S 145(3) AND 5% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPT IS CONSIDERED AS NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON T HE SAID AMOUNT. 9. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, WE FIND THAT SIMILAR PENALTY HAS BEEN CANCELLED IN THE CASE OF NARESH CHAND AGARWAL VS. CIT, (2014) 357 ITR 514 (ALLD), WHEREIN HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER :- A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE -: 12: - 12 COVERED BY IT, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY , THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE WORD ' INACCURATE ' IN THE CONTEXT OF LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) SIGNIFIES A DELIBERATE OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH DELIBERATE ACT MUST BE EITHER FOR TH E PURPOSE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY IS QUASI-CRIMINAL IN NATURE AND THE BURDEN LIES ON THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED HIS INCOME. AN ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 145 OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO TH E ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3), WHERE THE INTEREST ON THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS WAS CALCULAT ED -: 13: - 13 AS RS. 2,24,344 FOR A SEPARATE SOURCE OF INCOME AND AN ADDITION WAS ALSO MADE COMPUTING THE NET PROFIT AT 8 PER CENT, UNDER SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT, ON TH E CONTRACT BUSINESS. PENALTY WAS IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL. ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT: HELD, ALLOWED THE APPEAL, THAT NOTHING WAS CONCEALED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN TH E SECOND ROUND AND APPLIED THE 8 PER CENT, NET PROFIT RATE. NO FINDING OF DELIBERATE CONCEALMENT OF INCOM E WAS BROUGHT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER SUPPRESSED THE INTEREST FROM FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS. INTEREST FROM FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS WAS DULY SHOWN. IT WAS FOR T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. PENALTY COULD NOT BE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C). -: 14: - 14 10. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE M.P.HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHIVNARAYAN J AMNALAL & COMPANY, (1998) 312 ITR 311, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER :- THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD NINE LIQUOR SHOPS LOCATED IN SEVERAL PLACES MAINTAINED A SINGLE CASH BOOK AND LEDGER. THE AO HELD THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACQUIRE DAILY ACCOUNT FROM ALL THE SHOPS REGULARLY AT A PARTICULAR PLACE AND THAT THE SALES OF ALL THESE SHOPS WERE RECORDED AT A STRETCH. HE, THEREFORE, ESTIMATED THE SALES AND NET PROFIT. HE INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR CONCEALMENT AND IMPOSED PENALTY. THE TRIBUNAL CANCELLED THE PENALTY. ON A REFERENCE : HELD, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES WHATEVER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IT HAD MAINTAINED WHETHER THEY WERE PROPERLY MAINTAINED OR NOT AND IT HAD NOT WITHHELD OR CONCEALED ANY MATERIAL OR MADE ANY DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD -: 15: - 15 THE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIF IED IN HOLDING THAT THE PENALTY WAS NOT LEVIABLE. 11. FROM THE ABOVE TWO JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. MOREOVER, W E FIND THAT THE DECISION OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P VT) LIMITED, (2010) 322 ITR 158 (S.C.) IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO TH E FACTS OF THIS CASE, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVE D AS UNDER :- 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.' -: 16: - 16 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 T O 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(L)(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 PARTICULARS.' 12. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE CANC EL THE PENALTY. -: 17: - 17 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JULY, 2015. SD/- (B. C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH JULY, 2015. CPU* 7.22