TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 921
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee filed his original return of income on 30th November 2006 declaring total business income of Rs. 1,27,93,49,010/-. Subsequently, the assessee revised the return of income on 31.3.2008 reducing the total business income to Rs. 12,60,91,510/-. However, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 30th December 2009 at a total income of Rs. 1,30,43,90,275/- on the allegation that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. But there was no allegation regarding any concealment of income. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on all grounds except the addition on account of excess claim of deduction u/s 35(2) and addition for pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for filing revised return u/s 139(5) lapsed on 31.3.2008. The ld. AR further contended that from the certificate of DSIR it is amply clear taht it was informed to tax department. Assessee offered addition in income during the assessment proceedings based on approval of expenses by DSIR which was accepted by the AO without any modification. In view of the above, the ld. AR submitted that the allegation of the AO is baseless. The ld. AR relied on a catena of decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of HCIL Vs. Arrpl Triveni [JV] Vs. ACIT [2011] 16 Taxmann 384 [Del], CIT Vs. Vamchampigons and Agro Product 284 ITR 408, CIT VS. Dharampal Premchand Ltd [2011] 329 ITR 572 and CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pheres so much so that entirely different parameters are applicable for making quantum addition and for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. There can be no dispute with regard to the position of law that under section 271(1)(c) penalty can be levied only if either the act of "concealment of particulars of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income" is found to have been committed by the assessee. These are two different omissions or defaults albeit they refer to deliberate act on the part of the assessee. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of either suppressio veri or suggestio falsy. By the mere reason of such concealment or of furnishing of inaccurate particulars alone, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly 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 according to the truth or erroneous. Where there is no finding 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nafide legal claim which cannot be said to be fallacious or flippant and malafide. This fact has not been disputed by the Revenue. Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that in case a valid claim based on law is made by the assessee after disclosing full and true facts, and the same is rejected and addition is made qua that amount, it would not tantamount to either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income automatically. The Revenue is bound to establish its case which falls under either of the two conditions laid in section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue has relied on various decisions 8. The first decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the ld. DR in the case of CIT Vs Relianc....