TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rence in quantum, we heard these appeals together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order. We, however, take up the appeal in ITA No. 562/LKW/2011 for assessment year 2003-04 as a lead case and discuss its facts as under. 3. The facts in brief borne out from the record are that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80HHC and 80IB of the Act on gross total income without deducting the income derived from DEPB, duty draw back and premium on sale of DEPB. In quantum, the deduction was disallowed in the light of the judgment in the case of CIT v. Ritesh Industries Ltd [2004] 192 CTR 81, against which an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) which was also dismissed. Consequently, penalty was levied under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in this case is 2003-04 and by that time the issue whether deduction under section 80IB and 80HHC of the Act can be allowed on an income derived from DEPB, duty draw back and premium on sale of DEPB was quite debatable that is why the matter has travelled upto Hon'ble Apex Court and through the judgment in the case of Liberty India v. CIT (supra) the controversy has been set at rest; that too in the year 2009. Therefore, till 2009 the issue was debatable as different High Courts have expressed different views. Therefore, under a bona-fide belief the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80HHC and 80IB of the Act of the income derived from DEPB and duty draw back, for which penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a-fide belief for claiming deduction under section 80HHC and 80IB of the Act on the income derived from DEPB and duty draw back. We have also examined the other judgments referred to by the assessee and the order of the ld. CIT(A) who was deleted the additions. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has examined the issue in the light of various judicial pronouncements including the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) and we find that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly adjudicated the issue under the given facts and circumstances of the case. For the sake of reference, we extract the observations of the ld. CIT(A) as under:- "While deciding the issue in appeal, one has to be seen as to wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... furnishing of inaccurate information thus relates to furnishing of factually correct details and information about income. The admission or rejection of a claim is a subjective exercise and whether a claim is accepted or rejected has nothing to do with furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The A.O. has apparently proceeded to treat assessee's making an incorrect claim of income as furnishing of inaccurate particulars. What is a correct claim and what is an incorrect claim is a matter of opinion. In my considered view, raising a legal claim, even if it is ultimately found to be legally unacceptable, cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 'Inaccurate', as I have noted above, is something factually incorrec....