TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 939
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and is a distributor of LPG and sale of other related accessories like LPG stove, rubber tubes, lighters etc. The assessee is also having income from other sources viz: salary income from Malegaon Gas Agency, interest on FDR and saving accounts, agricultural income and capital gains. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 on 31-07-2008 declaring total income of Rs. 2,37,180/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,10,000/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 10-12-2008 declaring income of Rs.(-)4,36,289/- and agricultural income Rs. 8,05,024/-. In the return of income the assessee had also disclosed income from Long/Short Term Capital Gain/Loss, arising from sale of shares, Future and Opti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee had earned Long Term, as well as, Short Term Capital Gain/Loss on sale of shares and Future and Options. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee realized his mistake and pointed out this error during assessment proceedings to the Assessing Officer vide letter, the copy of which is at page 72 of the paper book. The Assessing Officer without mentioning the fact that the mistake has been pointed out by the assessee himself made addition, which was accepted by the assessee. During the proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee in his statement of facts had categorically mentioned about the letter highlighting the mistake. In penalty proceedings, the authorities below have erred in not considerin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f assessee to suppress the income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. DR vehemently supported the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming the levy of penalty and prayed for dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 5. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has been levied on assessee for making wrong claim on the sale of shares. During the period relevant to the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee had transacted in the shares of M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. on which the assessee had earned Capital Gain of Rs. 6,71,769/-. Apart from the shares of M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wrong calculation on the basis of the particulars furnished. If the particulars are furnished then there cannot be any question of concealment. A mistaken calculation is distinct from concealment. A mistaken indexation would not amount to furnishing of wrong particulars nor concealment within the scope of section 271(1)(c). 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that where there is no findings that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat such can be the interpretation of the concerned words. The words are plain and simple. In order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT Vs. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009) 9 SCC 589, where this court was considering the same provision, the court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This court referred to another decision of this court in Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008) 13 SCC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f an assessment of the value of the property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the Assessing Officer must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that the explanation must be preceded by a finding as to how and in what manner, the assessee had furnished the particulars of his income. The court ultimately went on to hold that the element of mens rea was essential. It was only on the point of mens rea that the judgment in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint CIT was upset. In Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors, after quoting f....