2014 (7) TMI 248

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs. 64,98,665/-. However, the assessment was framed on 30.12.2011 at an income of Rs. 1,06,09,211/- u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (here in after referred to the Act). During the course of assessment proceedings the A.O noticed that the assessee had earned dividend income of Rs. 81,09,932/- which did not form part of total income and that as per the assessee, the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act came to Rs. 16,020/-. The A.O asked the assessee to furnish details of expenses attributable to the earning of exempt income and as to why same should not be allowed as per the provisions of sec. 14A of the Act r.w Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) CIT Vs Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 317 ITR 1 (SC) UOI Vs Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (2010) 1GSTR66 (SC) and Decision in the case of CIT (LTU) Vs MTNL, ITA No. 626/2011, dated 10.10.2011 by the jurisdictional Delhi High Court 6. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are two different proceedings, and that an issue may call for an addition to income u/s 143(3) order, but in order to invoke a penalty, the A.O has to walk little extra mile to prove that there is failure on the part of the assessee to conceal the particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulrs and the mere non-acceptance of assessee's submissions and without....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... U.O.I Vs Dharamendra Textile Processor 306 ITR 277 (Supreme Court) 8. In his rival submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee suo-moto disallowed a sum of Rs. 16,020/- u/s 14A of the Act while the A.O computed the disallowance of Rs. 41,10,546/- which was more than the total expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 32,06,595/- which included the expenditure incurred on statutory expenses. Therefore, there was a difference of opinion as regards the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the working of the assessee and the A.O, but it cannot be said that the assessee either furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the income. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. On a similar issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 has held as under: "A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961, 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....