TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 8,36,510 after claiming deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') Rs. 57,67,289. During the course of assessment proceeding it was inter alia observed by the Assessing Officer that there is net miscellaneous income amounting to Rs. 7,31,419 being income from other than housing development activities, does not qualify for the deduction under section 80-IB(10) and accordingly the Assessing Officer after disallowing the deduction to the extent of Rs. 7,31,419 completed the assessment at an income of Rs. 15,67,930 vide order dated 30-11-2007 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment also initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is in appeal before us taking following effective ground of appeal : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred holding that the Assessing Officer was not correct in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on deduction claimed by assessee under section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on miscellaneous income amounting to Rs. 7,31,419 without appreciating the fact that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction under section 80-IB(10) and it failed to substantiate its explanation and also failed to prove that explanation offered before the Assessing Officer was bona fide." 4. At the time of hearing the ld. DR submits that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the disallowance of deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act on the amount of miscellaneous income Rs. 7,31,491 as the same is not eligible for the said deduction. However, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty on the ground that the assessee was under the bona fide impression that the income in question was eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(10), hence, there is no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7. It is settled law that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and the revenue is not required to prove wilful concealment as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing 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 [2008] 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 (page 13 of 317 ITR ): "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)(c), conditions stated therein must exist."' Their Lordships, after considering various decisions including Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) and Dharamendra Texti....