TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 623
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars and all material facts were disclosed and overall profitability of the firm was not changed, the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) is unwarranted and unjustified and be deleted. 2. That since in this case search was conducted u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act on 10.,2.2010 and notice u/s. 153A was issued by the DCIT for making fresh assessment, the imposition of penalty on the basis of old assessment is contrary to law and the same is deleted. 3. In this case the assessee is engaged in manufacture and trading of gen sets. It has two main manufacturing units - one at Mayapuri (Delhi) and other at Silvassa. The Silvassa unit enjoys benefits of Deduction u/s. 80IB(4) and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the reason that the profit of Silvassa unit will reduce as a result of apportionment of interest expenses. This in turn would reduce the amount of deduction available u/s. 80IB claimed by the assessee resulting in increased total taxable income of the firm. Assessing Officer proceeded to make computation for apportionment for use of loan fund by fund flow method. He held that the fund flow method is more specific as it specifically denotes the actual fund requirement of the various branches. Hence, he held that a sum of Rs. 52,93,690/- was to be added to the total income of the assessee. Assessing Officer also initiated the proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and showing exaggerated claim of deduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e claim u/s. 80IB and the computation was duly disclosed and was also supported by the Certificate of Chartered Accountant in this regard. The Auditors has issued certificate in form no. 10CCB as prescribed as per rule and it determined the deduction u/s. 80IB.The same was adopted by the assessee in the return. Thus the assessee by adopting the amount cannot be said to conceal any income or furnish in accurate particulars as the auditors in this regard has made the computation acting in statutory and expert position. It is settled law that assessee is entitled to rely upon the opinion of expert unless the same is ex-facie bogus. In this case the claim cannot be said to be ex-facie bogus. Moreover, the system had been consistently followed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be visited with the rigors of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). 9. In this regard, we draw support from the following case laws:- i) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158, ( Supreme Court) "A glance at the provisions of section 271 (1) (c) of the Incometax 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 words" 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 furnishi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(c) of the Act rejecting the assessee's contention that the amounts disallowed did qualify for deduction under sections 80-IA and 80KIB of the Act. The commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty accepting the assessee's contention that it had disclosed all material facts pertaining to the computation of deduction admissible to the assessee under sec. 80-IA and 80-IB, that the directors' remuneration had been duly debited in the head office and no amount was allocated towards units, that the interest earned on banks and interest paid to others had a direct nexus to the business activities and, therefore, deduction of said amount would be admissible to the assessee. The tribunal held that allocation of expenses between the head of....