TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee was following the Completed Contract Method. 3.1 It was a submission that the assessee had claimed the expenditure in respect of the four projects named as (i) 'Skylab Avenue for constructing 6 flats, which is a joint venture, (ii) 'Blue Nile Project' with 12 flats, 'sunglow project' with 10 flats and 'Clairville Project' with 10 flats which are constructed on the land belonging to the assessee. It was a further submission that the total expenditure claimed was nearly Rs. 2.35 crores. It was a submission that in the course of assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer held that the assessee is following the Project Completion Method and consequently the expenditure claimed by assessee was liable to be added. It was a submission that subsequently the assessee had submitted a revised return dated 20.03.2015/ P&L Account by admitting the closing work in-progress of each project, which was not taken in his original return dated 27.02.2015 and assured to pay the necessary taxes. Consequently, the ld. Assessing Officer had shifted the same from expenses to Work-in-progress. It was a submission that the assessee had accepted the assessment. It was a submission that the genuineness of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding interest whichever is applicable. The other disallowance Is provisions of payments to contracts without TDS etc., In his regard I wish to say that the provisions were made during the month of March and the actual payments were made subsequent financial year and at the time of payments made the necessary TDS were made I have honestly admitted the mistake and accepted the addition with the view to aim the expenditure in the subsequent assessment year. The last disallowance is the Bank Interest Rs. 27,832/- by oversight this was omitted by rne. Hence I wish to bring to your notice that all the mistakes were happed due to ignorance but not a will full one. I have been co-operating with the department in the matters of filing the returns and paying the taxes in time. Hence I humbly request you to consider the circumstances and drop the proposed penal proceedings. I assure that I will not do such errors subsequently. Kindly do the needful. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (V.K.C. JAYAMOHAN V.K.C. JAVAMOHAN, 81/40w Kutchecy Road, Myapore, Chennal - 600 004. April 23, 2015 The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle I, Chennai. Respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It was a submission that the ld. Assessing Officer has also not rejected the explanation given by the assessee. It was a submission that the penalty was not leviable in the instant case in view of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Pai (T) Vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11(SC) wherein it has been held that "It is not a case where penalty has been imposed for breach or contravention of a commercial statute where lack of intention to contravene or existence of bona fides may not be of much importance. It is also not a case where penalty is mandatorily imposable. It was, therefore, not a case where the enabling provision should have been invoked". The ld.A.R also placed reliance in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd., in [2010] 322 ITR 158(SC) wherein it has been held that: "9. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngredient for attracting civil liability as was the case in the matter of prosecution under section 276C of the Act. The basic reason why decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT was overruled by this court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors2, was that according to this court the effect and difference between section 271(1)(c) and section 276C of the Act was lost sight of in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT1. However, it must be pointed out that in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors**, no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT*, where the court explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and "inaccurate". It was only the ultimate inference in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT1 to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient for the penalty under section 271(1)(c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT* was overruled. 10. We are not concerned in the present case with the mens rea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this case, as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate particulars. In Webster's Dictionary, the word "inaccurate" has been defined as : "not ac....