2018 (10) TMI 360

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t was observed by the Assessing Officer that there was an income of Rs. 82,932/- only whereas the expenses debited to the profit and loss account amounted to Rs. 66,29,006/-. The assessee was asked to establish its claim of allowability of expenses of Rs. 66,29,006/-. In response, it was submitted by the assessee company that since this was the first year for incorporation of the company and the company was under the process of shifting its business unit as well as showroom in Mumbai, substantial sales had not taken place and that the major expenses were towards salary which was around Rs. 40 lacs comprising of around 60% of the total expenditure. However, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the expenditure of Rs. 66,29,006/-, as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respondent. However, looking into the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to decide the appeal on merits ex-parte qua the assessee/respondent. 4. The Ld. Sr. DR argued that the assessee had not filed any appeal against the quantum addition of Rs. 66,29,006/- and, therefore, it was apparent that the assessee had accepted that the quantum addition was justified. It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) had ignored the observations and findings of the Assessing Officer while deleting the penalty. It was submitted that it was a clear case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the penalty had been rightly imposed. It was prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) be set aside and the penalty reinstated. 5.0 We have he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd upon the return filed because that is the only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. In Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT, (2007) 6 SCC 329, this Court explained the terms 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars'. The Court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty u/s.271 (1)(c), mens rea was necessary, as according to the Court, the word 'inaccurate' signified a deliberate act or omission on behalf of the assessee. It went on to hold that clause (iii) of S. 271 (1) (c) provided for a discretionary jurisdiction upon the assessing authority, inasmuch as the amount of penalty co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d inaccurate particulars of income. As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word "particular" is a detail or details (in plural sense); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word "particulars" used in the section 271 (1) (c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. It is an admitted position in the present case that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It is not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The learned counsel argued that "submitting an incorrect claim in law for the expenditure on interest ....