TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 4,30,000/- for assessment year 2007-08 and Rs. 4,95,000/- for assessment year 2008-09 respectively. For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There was a delay of 54 days in filing of both the appeals for which the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The ld. counsel for the assessee referring to the said condonation application filed along with an affidavit submitted that the financial affairs of the club are being looked after by the Convenor Finance of the Club. During the period of December, 2017, the Convenor Finance, Mr. Bharat Naithani was busy arranging for his dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd messing commission received from contractor at Rs. 2,34,064/- was disallowed. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance and on further appeal, the Tribunal granted relief to the assessee. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Hon'ble High Court set-aside the judgement of the Tribunal in so far as the same related to the question pertaining to mutuality and the judgement of the ld. CIT(A) in whole and restored the order of the Assessing Officer. 7. Since the assessee during the impugned assessment year has earned income under the head "interest and dividend" at Rs. 10,85,323/-, therefore, the Assessing Officer following the order of the Jurisdictional High Court reopened the assessment u/s 147 to tax such interest income in the han....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... According to the Assessing Officer, once the matter is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the department, the assessee would have at least declared true income in its return of income u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. This goes to prove malafide intention of the assessee. Relying on various decisions, he levied the penalty of Rs. 4,28,600/- being minimum penalty leviable at the rate of 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 9. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) in the order for assessment year 2012-13 has deleted such penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the issue was debatable at one point of time. Therefore, it was not a fit case for levy of penalty. The decision of the Hon'ble Suprem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from contractor, but in seeking to claim the exemption on the same after the same had been defined by the Supreme Court to be inadmissible to it in law, the assessee would definitely in my opinion culpable for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its taxable income. The decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in Reliance Petroproducts (Supra) was delivered with regard to disallowance of claimed expenditure, which the A.O. held to be inadmissible. It stands on a somewhat different footing from an income not offered for tax. In the circumstances, I am inclined to agree with the A.O. to confirm the penalty levied by him." 11. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. The ld. counsel for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere very much available in the records based on which the Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment and also made the addition subsequently in the reopening assessment. I find merit in the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the claim of exemption made by the assessee can at best be a wrong claim but it cannot be called a false claim. The Courts have invariably held in various decisions that while the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are attracted for making a false claim, however, such penalty is not leviable merely because the assessee has made a wrong claim. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legi....