TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 616
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. 3. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under Section 80IA claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 49,56,683/- on the ground that the assessee did not engage more than ten workers. The assessee's contention that the workers employed by M/s Singhal Pesticides to carry out the job work contractually assigned to them should be considered as the workers employed because they were involved only for the purpose of manufacturing for and on behalf of the assessee company. However, this contention of the assessee was not accepted and deduction under Section 80IA claimed by the assessee was disallowed. The order of the Assessing Officer was accepted by the assessee and no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t cannot be presumed that there was any concealment of income or furnishing of wrong particulars. That even on merits, the assessee had a good case and had he filed the appeal against the original assessment order, the assessee's claim would have been allowed because Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in a recent case i.e. CIT Vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. - [2013] 34 taxmann.com 3 (Delhi) has considered the employees of the sister concern who were engaged for executing the business of the assessee company as the employees who were engaged for the purpose of manufacturing so as to entitle the assessee to claim the deduction under Section 80I. That in the case of the assessee, all the particulars were duly furnished. It is not the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer. The appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal was admitted by the High Court. It was, in these circumstances, that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had neither concealed the income nor filed inaccurate particulars thereof. In recording this finding, the Tribunal felt that if two views of the claim of the assessee were possible, the explanation offered by it could not be said to be false. This, however, is not the factual position in the case before us. The facts of the present case thus are clearly distinguishable. It is true that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of the income of the assessee, but it cannot be dispute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without paying the tax legally payable by them, if their cases are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have. We find that the assessee before us did not explain either to the income-tax authorities or to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as to in what circumstances and on account of whose mistake, the amounts claimed as deductions in this case were not added, while computing the income of the assessee-company. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the assessee is a company which must be having professional assistance in computation of its income, and its accounts are compulsorily subjected to audit. In the absence of any details from the assessee, we fail to ap....