TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (6) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Rs. 21,97,794. However, assessment was completed by the IAC (Asst) on 15th March, 1983 on a total income of Rs. 24,02,521. Various additions and disallowances were made which would be examined hereinafter on account of which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the IAC (Asst) under s. 271(1)(c). The appeal against assessment order was decided by the learned AAC vide his dt. 20th Feb., 1984. There was a further appeal to the Tribunal which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dt. 3rd Dec., 1985 in ITA No. 515 and CO Nos. 31, 32 & 39/Jp/ 84. The IAC (Asst) after considering the assessee's reply to the show cause notice and its written arguments dt. 28th Feb., 1985, took the view that penalty was leviable on the assessee wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at is how the parties are in cross-appeals. In the cross-objection raised by the assessee, besides saying that no penalty was leviable, it has been said that the appeal filed by the Department was time-barred as it could be filed by 26th March 1987. However, we find from the appeal memos of ITA No. 287/Jp/87 filed by the Department that appeal had been filed on 27th March, 1982, the date of the communication of the order appealed against being 27th Jan., 1987. The appeal was, therefore, filed after 59 days as against 60 days and, therefore, this objection of the cross-objector-assessee is not factually well founded. 5. On merits, shortly stated, after reiterating the submissions on behalf of the assessee before the income-tax authorities i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee were false and neither debatable nor bona fide. He also submitted that it was not correct to say that all information was given by the assessee in the returns. He submitted that information was given only on the questioning made by the IAC (Asst). According, to him, the claims were unfounded and, therefore, the penalty levied by the IAC (Asst) amounting to Rs. 7,10,150 was entitled to be restored. 6. We have considered the rival submissions as also the decision mentioned above. By now it is well settled that a mere disallowance of the claim or making of an addition in the assessments is not sufficient to attract penalty under s. 271(1)(c). One fact which is very glaring on the face is that the assessee is a Company in whose case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut of salaries, wages, and bonus is concerned, the assessee had given information vide letter dt. 17th Oct., 1982. The IAC (Asst) had taken the view that the liability accrued in the asst. yr. 1979-80 and not in the asst. yr. 1980-81. The assessee had explained vide letter dt. 28th Feb., 1985 that the amount was paid during the previous year in question in consequence of the decision of the Supreme Court. This was not followed on the ground that the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting. It could not be said that any inaccurate particulars had been furnished by the assessee. So far as the amount of Rs. 8,013 representing 'duty drawback' is concerned, the assessee filed details vide letter dt. 18th Oct., 1982, 27th Jan.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e or debatable. The next item of Rs. 18,592 was added on account of s. 37(3A). The detail were given by the assessee vide letter dt. 17th Oct., 1982. The IAC (Asst) treated it as a case of statutory disallowance. However, there is nothing on the record to show that the claim was false or not arguable. The next item of Rs. 83,900 related to duty drawback written off in 1968-69. The IAC (Asst) found that all draw back records upto 1972 had been destroyed in 1976 and, therefore, the irrecoverability was ascertained and decided in Oct., 1979. However, the accounting year of the assessee closed on 31st May, 1979. It also appears that this amount was allowed to the assessee in the asst. yr. 1981-82. This claim also appears to have been made bon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6D. After considering all the facts and the foregoing discussions, it could not be said that the explanations furnished by the assessee were false or that they were not bona fide or that complete facts relating to the computation of the assessee's income had not been furnished. Amounts which were ultimately allowed in the asst. yr. 1981-82, but which were claimed for the asst. yr. 1980-81 were those which were claimed under the bona fide belief that they pertained to the assessments year in question. The expenditure had either been directed to be allowed in the asst. yr. 1979-80 or 1980-81 or 1981-82. In the case of Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Ac of Sales-tax it was held by the Supreme Court that a return could not be treated as....