TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 421
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t year 2008-09, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on a patently wrong claim of the assessee which was in contravention of provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) while under similar circumstances the Hon'ble Delhi Court vide its decision dated 12.9.2013 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. Arotech Limited (Formerly SKS Limited) in ITA No.71/2013 has upheld the levy of penalty under Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Annexure A.3, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty by observing that the assessee society was functioning under the overall control of Ministry of Human Resource development, Government of India and officials were reappointed by the Government of India; the society had incurred a loss during the year and disallowance was made under Section 43B of the Act; therefore, there was no intention to conceal the income. Aggrieved by the order, the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 2.8.2013, Annexure A.4, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue by relying on the decision of the Apex court in CIT(A) vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Limited, (2010) 322 ITR 158. Hence the instant appeal by the revenue. 3. Learned counsel f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not paid and so these were disallowed under section 43B of the Act. Concealment penalty has also been levied. As the appellant was a Government organization, running into huge losses, there must not have been certainly any intention to claim higher deduction. Hence, it cannot be said that appellant had deliberately claimed wrong deduction and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The concealment penalty levied in this case is accordingly cancelled. All the grounds taken by the appellant are allowed." 6. The above finding was affirmed on appeal by the Tribunal in its order dated 2.8.2013, Annexure A.4. It was recorded as under:- "The above clearly shows that once particulars have been given in the return which are not found to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulars. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed by the assessee because that is the only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. To attract penalty, the details supplied in the return must not be accurate, not exact or correct, not according to the truth or erroneous." 8. A perusal of the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal shows that the assessee-society was functioning under the control of Ministry of Human Resource Development. It had filed a return declaring loss of more than Rs. 1.91 crores. The amounts relating to leave encashment and gratuity being claimed as deduction were not ....