TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 1132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re as under :- "In this case return of income was filed on 1-11-2004 declaring total; loss of Rs.(-) 94,09,975/- and the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act,1961, on 31-01.2006 determining the total income at Rs. 4,61,92,160/-. The A.O. made additions on two accounts. i) Rs. 8,03,80,805/- being 7% of total receipts of Rs. 1,14,82,97,211/- which was not shown this year as receipt as per the agreement /MOU and (ii) Rs. 89,21,135/- being expenses disallowed for want of proof. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (C) were initiated and show cause notice was issued. Assessee made the submission before the AO in reply to the show cause notice. However, A.O. was not satisfied with the explanation given by the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the additions proposed by him in the assessment order. The minimum penalty was worked out by him at Rs. 2,94,41,040/-. 4. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) confirmed the penalty by observing as under :- "The only ground of appeal raised by the appellant relates to levying penalty of Rs. 2,94,50,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act. In this case Patel Engg. Ltd., and LGE & c Indian arm of LGE & C Koreea formed a JV for bidding the tender floated by NHAI for Surat Manor National Highway./ JV was entered on 4-10-1999. Thereafter, the two members of the JV entered into an agreement on 16.10.2000 vide which they agreed to share the receipts in the ratio of 75% : 25% which was an internal agreement made by these two parties. During the course of asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P as the complete work has been carried out by PEL. In this count also the AO established the furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee and hence penalty was levied by the A.O. on the assessee." 5. Before us the Ld .A.R. for the assessee submitted that assessee has not concealed any facts or not filed inaccurate particulars but it genuinely believed that no real income accrued to Joint venture as entire work was transferred to PEL by virtue of agreement dt. 2-9-02 and therefore, no income arising from that work could really belonged to joint venture. There is no allegation that any material, particulars have been concealed by the assessee or any inaccurate particulars have been filed. Merely making a claim in the return of inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. City Dry Fish Company vs. C.I.T. (1999) 238 ITR-63 (A.P.H.C.) 3. C.I.T. vs. Mohd. Bus Sokat Ali (2004) 265 ITR-326 (Raj. H.C.) 4. C.I.T. vs. Bengal Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (1988) 174 ITR-402 (Cal. H.C.) 5. C.I.T. vs. Shishpal (2002) 255 ITR-187 (Raj. H.C.) 6. C.I.T. vs. Sanjiv Kumar (2008) 300 ITR-348 (P & H H.C.) Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products 322 ITR-158 (SC) held that disallowing claim could not be a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is held that for furnishing inaccurate particulars information given in the return should be incorrect or inaccurate. The words inaccurate particulars mean that the details supplied in the return are not accura....