TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of Rs. 54,85,590 imposed by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. 1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law in not holding that the penalty order dated 14.03.2012 passed by assessing officer was barred by limitation prescribed under section 275 of the Act. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ClT(A) erred in law in upholding the penalty levied by the assessing officer upon the appellant without appreciating that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the appellant. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the penalty order merely on the basis of the findings returned by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings. 2.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating that all material particulars were truly, fully and accurately furnished and disclosed by the appellant in the return of income and accompanying documents. 2.3 That on the facts and in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., u/s 143(2), were issued. In response, Ld. A.R. appeared from time to time and submitted the documents relied upon by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. disallowed Rs. 1,95,500/-, Rs. 7,99,025/-, Rs. 1,39,33,353/- and Rs. 63,142/- on account of fee paid to ROC, disallowance of claim of depreciation, disallowance of Umaid Bhawan Palace Project cost written off and disallowance of other expenses respectively by passing order and subsequently, assessed the income at Rs. 1,49,91,020/- in I.T.A.No. 61/Del/2013 and Rs. 9,63,961/- and Rs. 1,58,51,811/- on account of disallowance of claim of depreciation and other expenses respectively in I.T.A.No. 62/Del/2013. 3. Against the assessment order passed by the A.O., assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 25.10.2012, upheld the order of A.O. dated 14.03.2012, against which assessee filed appeal before ITAT, who, vide order dated 21.07.2011, upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A). Against this order of ITAT dated 21.07.2011, assessee has filed appeal before Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which is pending for adjudication. 4. On the basis of assessment order dated 28.12.2007, penalty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....our WC and C India P. Ltd. Vs DCIT 368 ITR 692. vii) CIT Vs Samsung India Electronics Ltd. 356 ITR 354 (Del.) 8. On the other hand, Ld . D. R. relied upon the order of A.O. in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) by contending inter-alia that since there was concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the order has been validly passed; That since the assessee acquired Lodhi Hotel and demolished it and planned to construct a new one, hence, business of Lodhi Hotel discontinued, the Assessee's plea that its hotel business was continuing and had only been suspended temporarily is factually incorrect; so, it is a case of discontinuation of the old business and the new business was yet to commence. Ld. D. R. further submitted that no interconnection, interdependence or interlacing between Umaid Bhawan Palace, Jodhpur, a new business and Lodhi Hotel business, which is evident from audit report filed with I. T. Return for Assessment Year 2004-05 has been established; that the assessee did not supply copy of agreement entered into between Umaid Bhawan Palace Project being a joint venture with Marudhar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. despite dema....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s - " Particulars", meaning of. A glance at the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income ax 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(12)(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 assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By no stretch of imagination can making an incorrect claim tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. 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 accordi....