TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were brought on record, de hors his findings in para 3.4 of his order that the assessee had constructed an extra floor in contravention to the approval granted by CBDT for ground plus eight floors. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the fact that the excess claim of deduction u/s.80IA was conscious and deliberate as it was well within the knowledge of the assessee that IT Park constructed by it was not as per the Notification of CBDT and thus concealed the particulars of income. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the above penalty on the incorrect premise that even if an admittedly incorrect claim is made in the return of income but the material facts are disclosed during the assessment proceedings, no such penalty was leviable. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any or all the grounds of appeal. 3. The issue raised in the present appeal filed by the Revenue is against deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the present case, the assessee is an AOP, who had declared income from business, commission income and income from other sources.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oor of the project could not be regarded as part of the project. The Assessing Officer thus, disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act to the extent of Rs. 53,79,539/-. Further, the addition was made in the hands of assessee for non-deduction of tax at source to the extent of Rs. 1,33,102/- by applying provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of both the additions for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. During penalty proceedings, the claim of the assessee was that it had made complete disclosure about the nature of claim made and hence, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act were not attracted. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). It was further pointed out by the assessee that as per Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty could be levied in a case where the assessee fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be false. Further, penalty may also be levied when person offers an explanation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....im of deduction of Rs. 6,71,40,572/- under section 80IA(iv) of the Act, the CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 53,79,539/- only. The CIT(A) was of the view that where the assessee had disclosed entire facts with respect to claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act in the return of income filed for the year under consideration and had also furnished necessary evidences which were material to the computation of income, then the assessee can be held to have fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for its assessment and for determining the eligibility of claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act during those years. The CIT(A) further held that the disallowance made does not ipso facto lead to levy of penalty for concealment and where the assessee had disclosed all the material facts relevant for its assessment and the issue was a debatable vis-à-vis the claim of deduction provided under the Statute and hence, was clearly outside the scope of Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Where the assessee had disclosed all the material facts necessary for its assessment and the only question was w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Act, area of Industrial Park was 61,780 sq. mtrs. and the minimum number of industrial units were 30 units. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee referred to another application moved before the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, which is placed at pages 19 to 21 of the Paper Book, which was filed on 07.05.2007, under which the proposed area of Industrial Park was 51,096 sq. mtrs. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the said application moved by the assessee was the separate application in respect of Wing Nos.B and C and were not revised application of the assessee earlier filed and also it was not relevant to decide the issue before us. Further, our attention was drawn to unit-wise details of Industrial Park of the assessee placed at pages 22 and 23 of the Paper Book, wherein 33 units were enlisted and on 9th floor, there were two units and total area of units of each floor of all the floors was 4,84,898 sq. ft. equivalent to 45048 sq. mtrs. The assessee explained that the proposed area of Industrial Park was 61780 sq. mtrs. and the assessee claimed that the profits arising from the said portion were also eligible for d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;s Dictionary, the word "inaccurate" has been defined as : "not accurate, not exact or correct ; not according to truth ; erroneous ; as an inaccurate statement, copy or transcript." 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 correct, not according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars." 11. The proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that merely because the claim made by the assessee was found to be incorrect, does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial Park by the assessee and necessary approval was granted to the assessee for proposed area to be built up of 61,780 sq. mtrs. The final plan approved for the said project was ground plus 8 floors. Further, the assessee also constructed 9th floor and on which, there were two units. However, the total area of constructed portion was 45048 sq. mtrs. as against the proposed area mentioned in the application filed before the requisite authority. Since the area was within margin, it made a claim for deduction under section 80IA(iv) of the Act for the said 9th floor units also. However, the Assessing Officer denied the said deduction to the assessee since the 9th floor was constructed after completion of the project of ground plus 8 floors. The Assessing Officer also referred to an application moved by the assessee in respect of another project, under which, the proposed area of about 51,096 sq. mtrs. only. Hence, the Assessing Officer re-computed the deduction under section 80IA(iv) of the Äct, against which the assessee was held to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income and penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied. The claim of the assessee before the autho....