TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 31/D/2004, relating to the assessment year 1999- 2000, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case when deduction itself was disputed that in which year the deduction was allowable the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be levied and upheld? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case penalty can be imposed for claiming the deduction in AY 1999-2000 when the department itself was of the view that the deduction is not allowable in AY 1998- 99?" 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the assessee is manufacturer of auto parts and supplier to Maruti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of account for the said year. The CIT(A) vide order dated 20.11.2003 dismissed the appeal of the assessee against levy of penalty. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals against the orders dated 20.11.2003 and 26.12.2002 before the Tribunal. The revenue also filed appeal against the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer in the consequential proceedings taken in pursuance to the order of the CIT dated 26.12.2002 under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal vide order dated 25.3.2007 allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the order of the CIT passed under Section 263 of the Act and restored that of the Assessing Officer dated 27.3.2001 allowing deduction of Rs.10,00,000/- fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. The findings record read as under:- "16.1 The question now is - whether the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income? Section 271(1)(c), Explanation I, provides that where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act - (A) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer to be false or (B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bonafide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erial fact that this very amount had also been claimed in assessment year 1998-99. Thus, all the ingredients of clause (B) are satisfied and, therefore, in terms of Explanation I, the impugned amount has to be deemed to represent the income in respect of which in accurate particulars have been furnished. 16.3 Having considered the assessee's explanation, we are of the view that the default committed by the assessee is not a technical or venial default, as substantial tax is involved. There is no doubt that the assessee had claimed the same amount twice over, second time in this year. Having claimed the amount in assessment year 1998-99, there was no reason for the assessee to claim the same amount in this year again. The default o....