TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment year 2002-03, claiming following substantial questions of law:- 1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1) (c ) of the IT Act, 1961 by AO on account of excess claim of deduction under Section 80IB on surrendered income ignoring the fact that the assessee had knowingly claimed deduction under Section 80IB inspite of a categorical knowledge that such a claim was patently wrong and against the law and also that it was ab initio void claim? 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1) (c) of the IT Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....10.2004. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1) (c) of the Act dated 9.12.2009. Vide order dated 15.3.2010, Annexure A.II, penalty of Rs. 12,91,583/- was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 17.2.2011,Annexure A.III, the appeal was allowed in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Reliance Petroproducts (P) Limited's case (supra). It was further held that the issue was debatable. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order impugned herein, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue on the ground that it was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case and the relevant record. It is a case where penalty has been levied by the Assessing Officer on the debatable issue and incorrect claim made by the Assessing Officer. It is not a case where the assessee has made false claim, therefore, the fact situation of the case is fully covered by the decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Shabad Coop Sugar Mills Limited, (2010) 322 ITR 73 (P&H) and CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Limited, reported at (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). 6.1 In the case of CIT v. Shabad Coop Sugar Mills Limited (supra) the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under:- "Penalty-Concealment of income - Wrong claim for deduction does not amount to concealment of income - Penalty canno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this case, as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate particulars. In Webster's Dictionary, the word "inaccurate" has been defined as; "not accurate, not exact or correct; not according to truth; erroneous; as an inaccurate statement, copy or transcript." 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature." 8. Further, this Court in CIT v. Rubber Udyog Vikas (P) Limited, (2011) 335 ITR 558 recorded as under:- "8. The Tribunal held that making incorrect claim would....