2012 (7) TMI 359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the penalty order is barred by limitation. The order has also been challenged on merits. It may be mentioned here that the penalty has been levied on account of reduction in the claim made by the assessee - company u/s 80IB of the Act. 2. Ld. Counsel has furnished a chronology of events for assessment year 2003-04, which is reproduced below :- "(i) Return filed on 2.12.2003 (ii) Income declared Rs. 8,21,77,678/- (iii) Deduction claimed u/s 80IB Rs. 2,52,41,632/- (iv) Revised return filed along with letter on 8.12.2004 (V) Income as per revised return Rs. 8,06,71,130 (vi) Deduction claimed u/s 80IB Rs. 2,67,48,176/- (vii) Income assessed in Order dated 28.2.2005 Rs.8,22,93,560/- (viii) Ded....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8,176/- has been reduced to Rs. 2,26,11,024/- ( the correct figure being Rs.2,52,41,632). The case is squarely covered by the decision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). 3. In reply, the Ld. Sr. DR submits that penalty can be levied even when there is a recomputation of deduction u/s 80IB. In this connection, he refers to paragraph Nos. 6 to 11 of the penalty order which read as under :- 6. "The Hon. Courts further observed in this connection, a distinction that is clearly noticeable between the two clauses of explanation 1. Clause (A) refers to a case where no explanation is furnished or if an explanation is furnished by the assessee, it is found to be false. Finding an explanation to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of penalty if the assessing officer in the course of any proceedings under the Act is satisfied that the assessee has, a) Concealed the particulars of income, or b) Furnished inaccurate particulars of such income Thus, if assessee conceals the particulars of total income as is referred in S. 2 (45) of the Act of furnishes inaccurate particulars of such total income, he is liable to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. This view if ably supported by the apex court decision at 125 ITR 634 elucidating the provisions of law on penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 11. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements wherein it is held that claiming excessive deduction also amounts to concealment of income either suppression of recei....