TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 632
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nreasoned, erroneous, invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in . confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271 (1 )( c) of the Income-tax Act , 1961, overlooking the fact that the appellant assessee had furnished all the relevant informing relating to the assessment for the year under consideration. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in overlooking the fact that the impugned disallowance u/s 14A of the Act , had been made in respect of a debatable issue about whether for making disallowance under that sect ion of the Act , only dividend yielding investments were to be considered or all the investments were to be taken into account and f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 24.8.05 in ITA no.604/ Kol/2005. 6. According to AO, during the course of such proceedings, the Assessee contended, during the relevant F.Y, that it earned dividend of Rs. 42,020/- on investment which was funded out of borrowed fund for Rs. 6,94,685/- and filed details of the same. According to AO, the Assessee submitted that it has no objection in disallowing corresponding interest @17% i.e. Rs. 1,18,096/-. The AO examined the details and passed the assessment order dt:24.11.06 u/s 254/143(3) wherein the AO disallowed Rs. 1,18,096/- on account of interest paid on borrowed amount and revised the total loss at Rs.l,64,56,884/-. 7. Thereafter, the Penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) was initiated by issuing a notice dt:24.11.06 u/s 271(1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt opportunity was given to the appellant on 2.1.2007 and 21.05.2007 ( a period of more than five and a half month) to explain all the above four issues which have now been raised before me by the A.R of the appellant . However, the appellant did not furnish any explanation before the AO. Reasons for not doing so could not be explained by the A.R of the appellant . For that reason alone, penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)( c) is upheld in view of the case of CIT Vs. Chanchal Katiyal (Al l) 173 Taxmann 71. Appeal is dismissed." 9. Before us the assessee contends that the case of the assessee is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158(SC) and reiterated the su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eleted the said disallowance and the Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court upheld the order of CIT-A. Before the Honourable Supreme Court the assessee contended that the disallowance made by the AO was solely on the basis of a different view on the same set of facts and there was no concealment of income nor what any inaccurate particulars of such income furnished. The Honourable Supreme Court held that a mere making a claim which is not sustainable in law and will not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below: 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 det....