TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 674
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing substantial questions of law:- "(1). Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in deleting the penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act amounting to Rs. 27,61,108/- fully relying on the decision of CIT (A) and holding this is not a fit case where penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act is leviable? (2). Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in deleting the penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act amounting to Rs. 27,61,108/-, ignoring the fact that the assessee society was credited the amount deducted from purchase price of sugarcane to share deposit account with the assurance to the shareholders that the shares will be allotted for this amount to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ground that the assesssee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT (A) deleted the said penalty on the ground that the assessee has claimed such deductions from payment to farmers in past years but no additions were made. Even when the addition was made, the same was deleted. In the A.Y. 2003-04, the CIT (A)'s predecessor held that such collection towards share deposit account was not in the nature of revenue receipt and hence was not taxable. 6. The Tribunal held that the assessee collected Rs.90,23,233 from purchase price given to farmers on the ground that such collection was to be utilized for issuance of shares. The shares could not be issued as the State Government did not give permission, which was required to is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant-revenue submits that in deleting the penalty, the Tribunal ignored the fact that the assessee society credited the amount, deducted from purchase price of sugar cane, to the share deposit account with the assurance to the share holders that the shares will be allotted to all the cultivators. The assessee, however, has not allotted the shares since 1978-79. The particulars of income in the return were thus inaccurate, inviting penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 8. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance Petro-products Private Ltd [2010 (11) SCC 762], the Supreme Court considered CIT Vs. Atul Mohan Bindal [(2009) 9 SCC 589]; Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2008) 13 SCC 369]; Union of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cording to truth or erroneous. 18. 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 made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars." 9. In the present case also, we find that there is no finding to show that the details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be incorrect, erroneous or false. In the circu....