TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 851
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Bench, Agra vide order dated 26/06/2013. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-III, Kanpur, camp at Gwalior has passed the order on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without considering the facts produced before him at the time of hearing and during the course of hearing before the Learned Assessing Officer. 3. The assessee has clearly mentioned in the return of income that it has moved application before the Honourable CCIT Bhopal u/s 10(23C) of the Act well before one year than the question of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not justified to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act." 2. The ld. Counsel states as at the bar that ground no. 3 is not pressed.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant was not having the mandatory approval, held the appellant to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income and thereafter he levied the penalty of Rs. 6,44,353/-. 3.2 In the appeal filed before the CIT(A), the following grounds of appeal were raised: "1. The penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law as well as on facts and need to be corrected, revised and/ or cancelled. 2. The learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3 Gwalior has grossly erred in imposing penalty of Rs. 6,44,353/-. As the assessee's exemption application u/s 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was pending with Hon'ble CCIT, Bhopal since a long time. 3. That the learned ACIT has grossl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hief Commissioner is indicative of the unacceptable assumption on the part of it. It is not understood as to how the appellant believed that it shall be granted approval as a fate accompli just because application had been moved. The Society which is assisted by the competent Lawyers and Consultants took the deliberate risk. Question, whether the there was furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or not has to be seen in the context of the disclosures made in the return or income and not otherwise. In my considered opinion claiming exemption even when it was not having requisite approval whereas for claiming exemption it ought to have approval m hand is nothing but a surer act of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndicates that with lot of deliberation taking risk only the exemption had been claimed in the return of income. When the appellant was not having exemption, the appellant cannot be heard to say that still its claim was bonafide. In fact the claim of the appellant was such on the disallowance of which there could not have been any opinion different from that of the AO. 3.4 Accordingly, the order of the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby upheld and Ground No. 1, 2 & 3 of the appeal are dismissed. 3.5 In so far as Ground No. 3 "That the learned ACIT has grossly erred in not allowing credit of salary paid Rs. 18,17,525/- of which all particulars were filed." is concerned it is also dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 17,84,261/- and revised the income of the assessee to Rs. 22,34,510/-. 9. The ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 16.01.2006, confirmed the assessment order, dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. 10. Penalty of Rs. 6,44,353/- was levied on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the reasoning that the assessee had willfully furnished wrong particulars of its income, treating its income as exempt u/s 10(23C)(vi). This penalty has been confirmed by the impugned order. 11. In its aforesaid application filed u/s 154 of the Act, the assessee had also claimed allowance of expenditure of Rs. 18,17,520/-, claimed on advance salary paid to teachers. The assessee stated that this amount represented the portion of salary which was to ....