TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 832
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 271(1)(c) of the Act on many a ground. 2. We have heard Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for the revenue on the question of admission. It is submitted by Mrs. Bansal that the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal has gone wrong by expressing the opinion that there has been no submission of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. To appreciate the aforesaid submission of Mrs. Bansal, we have carefully perused the orders passed by the CIT(A) and that of the Tribunal. On scrutiny of the order of the CIT(A) it is noticeable that the first appellate authority had taken note of the submission canvassed by the assessee that it had explained in detail the terms of the agreement that it had entered into with the la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt proceedings vide their letter dated 19-1-2000. On the above circumstances it cannot be said that the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of income, or had concealed particulars of income. Therefore, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be upheld. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty." 3. The said passage has been adequately dealt with by the Tribunal and given acceptance. In this regard, we may profitably refer to the decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322 wherein the Apex Court has held thus - "9. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preceded by a finding as to how and in what manner, the assessee had furnished the particulars of his income. The Court ultimately went on to hold that the element of mens rea was essential. It was only on the point of mens rea that the judgment in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT was upset. In Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, after quoting from section 271 extensively and also considering section 271(1)(c), the Court came to the conclusion that since section 271(1)(c) indicated the element of strict liability on the assessee for the concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return, there was no necessity of mens rea. The court went on to hold that the objective behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nscript." 11. 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 to 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(1)(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 mad....