TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 1052
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( 'the Act' for short). 2. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of brevity. 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer on addition on account of estimation of net profit. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A -has erred in law in deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 10,07,167/- (Rs. 17,32,335 minus Rs. 7,25,168/- ) under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 4. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal: "1. On facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(Appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter dated 3.12.2008 was filed under which it was pointed out by the assessee that due to bonafide mistake, Rs. 10 lacs were credited to the security account while for the balance amount, profit @ 5.36% was offered for taxation. The Assessing Officer referred the case of the assessee for special audit under section 142(2A) of the Act and thereafter, addition of Rs. 21,54,387/- on account of suppression of receipts from PWD, Sirhind was made. Another addition was made by the Assessing Officer by rejecting the books of account and estimation the income of the assessee @ 12% on total turnover of Rs. 9,59,16,586/-. The addition made on account of suppression of receipts was telescoped with the total addition made while estimating the net profit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It was pointed out by the ld. AR for the assessee that the total receipts of the assessee on account of contract were above Rs. 10 Cr. and re-conciliation could not be made by the assessee. Reliance was placed on VIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.322 ITR 158(S.C) and CIT Vs Sidhartha Enterprises, Ludhiana (ITA No.908 of 2008 (O&M) order dated 14.07.2009 (P&H). 10. The ld. DR for the revenue pointed out that on such income, which had been surrendered by the assessee, there was merit in levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In respect of the estimation of GP rate and deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the CIT(Appeals), the ld. DR for the revenue placed reliance on the following case laws : i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by various Courts. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT, Ahemdabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (supra) while referring in the word particulars in "inaccurate particulars of income", observed, "as per Law Lexicon, the meaning of word 'particular' is a detail or details, the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word "particulars" used in Section 271 (l)(c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. " It was further held as under:- "We have already seen the meaning of the word "particulars" in the earlier part of this judgment. Reading the words in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the Return, which are not accurate, not exact or corr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive Sugar Mills Ltd [322 ITR 73 (P&H)], wherein it has been observed that making wrong claim for deduction, does not amount to concealment or giving of inaccurate particulars within the meaning of section 271 (l)(c) of the Act. 16. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Tek Ram (HUF) 300 ITR 354 (P&H) had held that where the issue is highly debatable in as much as two views were possible on the said issue and where the claim of the assessee on the issue was based on one possible view, the making of such bonafide claim on the basis of a possible view could not be treated as concealment of its income by the assessee or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income so as to attract the penal provisions of section 271 (l)(c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is concerned, we are of the view that there is no merit in the levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act as it is the case of two views and because of the divergence of view, estimation of profits in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(Appeals) in this regard and confirm the deletion of penalty on estimation of profits in the hands of the assessee. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed. 19. The other addition on which penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act was levied, was under declaration of the receipts by the assessee. The assessee is a Contractor and during the year under consideration, had undertaken contracts of various government bodies. The assessee had dec....