TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 788
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....short, "the Tribunal") in I.T.A. No.485/Chd/2009 for the assessment year 2003-04, claiming following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 47,77,500 /- ignoring the fact that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income by claiming wrong deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on interest income? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. The respondent-assessee is a company. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 on 29.11.2003 declaring an income of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment was finalized on 07.02.2006 at total income of Rs. 4,66,85,460/- as against the returned income of Rs. 10,93,764/- vide order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. The assessee preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 4.12.2006, Annexure A.III, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal vide Annexure A.IV dismissed the ground relating to claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act on interest income of Rs. 65,00,000/- as not pressed. Thus, it was held by the Assessing Officer that the assessee intentionally and deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income on interest inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held against the assessee. Ultimately, it was held by the Assessing Officer that the assessee intentionally furnished inaccurate particulars of income on interest income by claiming the same as deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. Case of the assessee was that on the advise of the Chartered Accountant, the claim was made by revising the return. It has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal that even if it is assumed that the claim made by the assessee on the advise of Chartered Accountant was wrong, still it was not a good ground for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as two conditions are required to be satisfied i.e. firstly there should be furnishing of inaccurate particulars and secondly, there must be conceal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. The decision from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court for claiming any deduction on the advice of the counsel in the case of CIT Vs. Amarnath (2008) 16 DTR (P&H) 326, wherein the Tribunal was held to be justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), further fortifies the case of the assessee. Even otherwise, no such deduction was claimed in the original return and it was only claimed during assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) on the advice of the Chartered Accountant. It is not the case that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars with the intention to conceal income rather it made a claim on the advise of the Chartered Accountant, which was found to be wrong. In view of these facts and judicial pronouncement....