TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 619
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he present Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2003-2004. 2. The RespondentAssessee, in it's accounts, had shown borrowed funds and interest free advances to it's sister concerns. The Assessing Officer disallowed the proportionate interest out of the interest paid for the interest free advances given to the sister concern. The Assessee challenged this order before of Income Tax (Appeals)(Commissioner), who upheld the same. Thereafter the Assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter to the file on Assessing Officer for reexamination of the deductibility. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Apex Court in S.A.Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee had concealed its income and had misrepresented the facts. He submitted that the Assessee did not even bother to furnish explanation and penalty was rightly imposed. He submitted that the Tribunal mechanically applied the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (supra) without appreciating the factual aspects in which the decision was rendered. He submitted that the decision of the Apex Court has not laid down an absolute proposition as held by the Tribunal and if such interpretation is accepted there will be virtually no case where a penalty can be levied. He submitted that in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (supra), the Assessee therein had given an explanation, which is not the present case. He submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. It is therefore submitted that no penalty could be levied as the actions of the Assessee were bonafide. 8. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act lays down that the penalty can be imposed if the authority is satisfied that any person has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The Apex Court in Reliance Petroproducts (supra) applied the test of strict interpretation. It held that the plain language of the provision shows that, in order to be covered by this provision there has to be concealment and that the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars. The Apex Court held that by no stretch of imagination making an incorrect claim in law, would amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onclusive finding that there was an active concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. These parameters had to be fulfilled before imposing penalty on the Assessee. 11. The case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zoom Communications P.Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi) relied upon by Mr.Chhotaray is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case the Assessee had conceded before Assessing Officer that it's action of claiming revenue deductions was not correct at all. It was not the case of the Assessee therein, throughout the proceedings, that the deductions carried out by the Assessee was a debatable issue. The Delhi High Court noted that even before it the Assessee could not explain the circumstances and it's con....