TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 857
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....43(3) of the Act, was completed on 28. 12. 2006 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 56. 19 crores. Effective ground of appeal is about deletion of penalty, levied by the AO, u/s. 271(1)(c)of the Act. Brief facts: During the year under appeal, the assessee had transferred the international air cargo business to a company, namely DHL Banzar Lumier Pvt. Ltd. wherein 51% shares were held by the partners of the assessee firm. The remaining facts are that it received a sum of Rs. 57. 73 crores for the said sale, that it offered the consideration received under the head "capital gains", that the sale proceeds were invested in NABARD bonds and NHB bonds, that it claimed exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act. The AO, referring to clause 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceeds of Rs. 54. 37 crores under the head "capital gains", that there was difference of opinion between the assessee and the AO, that in such a case penalty could not be levied, that investment made in NABARD and NHB bonds prove that assessee was of the opinion that it was entitled to claim exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act, that the penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings were different and independent of each other, that mere non-acceptance of the claim of the assessee did not ipso fact lead to the conclusion it had filed inaccurate particulars of income, that the FAA had restricted the non-compete fee to Rs. 4. 5 crores, that he had accepted the contention of the assessee that the amount received by it was for transfer of goodwill....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore us, the DR supported the order of the AO and stated that assessee had not disclosed the income under proper head, that the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee with regard to quantum additions. The AR relied upon the cases of Anant Overseas(P) Ltd. (54taxmann 211), M/s. SM Construction(Appeal no. 412/2013)Fortune Hotels and Estates (P. ) Ltd. (52taxmann330). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that during the year under consideration the assessee had sold its business and had received a sum of Rs. 54. 73 crores, that the sale proceeds were invested in bonds and it claimed an exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act, that the AO held that the transaction fell under the head busines....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Present is not the case of concealment of the income. That is not the case of the Revenue either. However, the learned counsel for the Revenue suggested that by making incorrect claim for the expenditure on interest, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of the income. As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word "particular" is a detail or details (in plural sense); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word "particulars" used in Section 271(1)(c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g that for applicability of Section 271(1)(c), conditions stated therein must exist. " 12. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under Section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed 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. 13. In Dilip N. Shroff v. CIT [(2007) 6 SCC 329] this Court explained the terms "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars". The Court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), mens rea was necessary, as acc....