TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... IT Act, 1961 when the assessee has deliberately made inaccurate claim of interest of Rs.81,83,43,431/- which was apparently related to the capital expenditure? 2. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case Ld.CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 when the quantum addition of Rs.81,83,43,431/- has been accepted by the assessee in as much as no appeal has been filed by the assessee against the quantum addition? 3. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case Ld.CIT(A) did not appreciate that the fact that inspite of show cause letter issued to the assessee, it did not response to the notice. 4. Whether the ld.CIT(A) was correct in relying upon case laws which were not relevant to the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order of learned CIT(A) should be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, stated that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was accepted because the assessed loss was more than a thousand crore and the assessee had a carried forward loss of more than Rs. 6,000 crores. That the possibility of set off of this carry forward loss in future is also negligible because year after year, the assessee is running into losses. In view of the above, no appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed under Section 143(3). He further submitted that the auditor by wrongly appreciating the facts, had remarked in the audit report with regard to non-availabi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. (supra), their Lordships held as under:- "Where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars." 7. Following the above decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (supra) held as under:- "In the instant case it is quite evident that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d an inaccurate return. In that view of the matter, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for our consideration. Findings returned by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are pure findings of fact, which do not call for any interference." 8. That the ratio of the above decision of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court would be squarely applicable to the facts of the case under appeal before us. There is no finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. A mere making of a claim which in the opinion of the Assessing Officer is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing of i....