TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (12) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee on the strength of the revised return, though in such circumstances the Supreme Court has upheld the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in the case of G.C.Agrawal v. CIT reported in [1990] 186 ITR 571? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and that the assessee is in habit of making false claim of deduction on the machinery which was not put to use and in absence of any cogent reason for revising the return, where as the Supreme Court's decision in the case of G.C.Agrawal vs. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 571 on the similar circumstances penalty was upheld u/s 271(1)(c) holding that explanation to that section is applicable, the Tribunal is right in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) ? (3) Whether, on the facts and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or inaccurate particulars must have been furnished deliberately by the assessee. The entirety of the circumstances must be taken into consideration and the conduct of the assessee from the inception to the conclusion of the assessment proceedings must be viewed in order to find out whether a criminal intention of conscious concealment of true particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee has been established. Where a revised return is filed, the crux of the matter is that if after examining the return and the accounts of the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings, the ITO discovers an omission or wrong statement place by the assessee and, therefore, a revised return is filed, then th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... clearly go to support the assessee's case and the order passed by the A/o. on going through the contents of the assessment order as well as the contents of the penalty order, we are unable to find out mens rea or guilty mind or intention on the part of the assessee in furnishing of inaccurate particulars relating to claim of depreciation and investment allowance and also in respect of interest which accrued on the FDRs. The assessee had very clearly submitted in its reply dtd.5.4.1986 which we have extracted elsewhere above that the reviewed return has been filed in order to avoid probable litigation with the income-tax department in respect of depreciation and investment allowance claimed on Dozer D3 plant, particularly keeping in mind th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he supplementary paper book filed on 10.1.1995. We also find that the assessee also purchase diesel for Dozer D3, the details which have been given placed from pages 20 to 25 of the supplementary paper book. These related evidences placed in the supplementary paper-book filed on 10.1.1995 amply go to establish that the claim for depreciation and investment allowance made in the original return was not a false claim but it was a bonafide and right claim and if contested could have been allowed by the Revenue authorities. However, the assessee did not wish to take any chance or risk with the income-tax department particularly seeing the attitude of the department in relation to the proceedings for the asstt. yr. 1981-82 in respect of a simila....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ived at is that the assessee is not liable or exigible for any penalty in accordance with the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act more so far the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars in relation to the depreciation and investment allowance claim as also in respect of the accrued interest FDR. We, therefore, without any hesitation uphold the impugned order of the A/O in cancelling the penalty levied by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act." 4 There is no dispute on the facts that the assessee has claimed depreciation on the same line as he has claimed in the assessment year 1981-82 and that depreciation was not allowed in the assessment year 1981-82. Just thereafter, he has filed revised return for the year 1983-84 and not claime....