2013 (1) TMI 878

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the penalty to the tune of Rs. 3,31,200/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271 (1) (c) ?" 2. Heard learned counsel Ms. Paurami Sheth for the revenue and examined the material on record with her assistance. 3. The issue pertains to deletion of penalty imposed on account of disallowance of bad debts. It appears that the assessee disclosed all relevant material facts before the Assessing Officer at the time of filing of return. The Assessing Officer did not find such claim sustainable and imposed penalty on the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted such penalty and the Tribunal has rightly held in the finding that it is a case of difference of opinion in allowability of certain deductions and in absence of any material to indicate any dishonest....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 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 the Section 271(1)(c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. It is an admitted position in the present case that no information given in the Return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It is not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The learn....