TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2004- 05, proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in accepting the contention of the assessee, setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) whereas the Hon'ble Tribunal itself, while deciding the appeal on quantum, had accepted the observations of the AO as well as the CIT(A) and sustained the addition on which penalty has been imposed? 2. Briefly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. The assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of Punjab. It is engaged in procurement and storage of foo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b Government and CONWARE on Mercantile system of accounting. Aggrieved by then order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 6.2.2008, Annexure A.2, the CIT(A) observed that each and every debt cannot be written off even after the amendment of Section 36(1) (vii) and 36(2) of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 23.9.2009, Anenxure A.3, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal holding that there was no material to show that the Government had refused to pay any amount to the assessee. After the addition was confirmed by the CIT (A), the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee for imposition of pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d loss account. The addition was confirmed by the Tribunal by following the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of South India Surgical Co. Limited 287 ITR 62. However, the undisputed fact remains that principal amount due from Punjab Government as well as from CONWARE was written off in the next year i.e. Assessment year 2005-06. This fact has been noted even by the Tribunal in assessee's own case vide para 21 in ITA No.204, 311 and 292, 459 and 427/Chandi/2008 relating to assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 order dated 23.9.2009. This clearly shows that assessee was not hoping to recover the interest and entry of interest was made only for memorandum purposes i.e. why corresponding debit entry was also made. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word 'particulars' used in section 271(1) (c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By no stretch of imagination can making an incorrect claim tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. There can be no dispute tha....