TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was imposed by the Assessing Officer which has been also upheld by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by order under appeal. 2. The assessee has taken several grounds in its appeal but the matter of controversy between the parties is in connection with the levy of penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,16,48,949. 3. The facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee has claimed expenses on account of provisions made for contract totalling to Rs. 8,61,19,588. The said provisions pertain to 12 of the contracts undertaken by the assessee which were completed/incomplete. The Assessing Officer examined the facts of each and every contract and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the assessee nowhere furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed his income to avoid tax liability derived from the said circumstances. It is also specifically submitted that in view of the Accounting Standard 7 revised-2002, the assessee can claim future losses in the relevant assessment year which is quite justifiable, hence, in the said circumstances, the rejection of claim by the Assessing Officer is not falling in the category of furnishing of accurate particulars or concealment of particulars of income to avoid tax liability, hence, in the said circumstances, the said penalty order is not justifiable in the eyes of law specifically in the circumstances when the Department has allowed the said claim in the earlier asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, the present caption appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed. It is also argued by the learned Departmental representative that the order passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2003-04 has also affirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the same has not been set aside by any higher authority under law, therefore, in the said circumstances, the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) dated March 28, 2011 has rightly been passed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by his order dated January 27, 2012 and these orders are not liable to be interfered with by this Tribunal and, the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich are not treated as a single construction contract in accordance with para graph 8 at the stage. 7. On perusal of the assessment order dated February 28, 2006, apparently, the assessee claimed losses with regard to the incomplete work which has not been allowed by the Assessing Officer and the said losses having been added to the income of the assessee. In our view, it is not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Making incorrect claim, if any, does not amount to concealment of particulars because no information given by the assessee in its return of income is found to be incorrect. In this regard, we draw the support from the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Lt....