TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 5.44 Cr. The assessee derived income from manufacturing of assemblies and sub-assemblies for electronics energy meters and allied products. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide order dated 23.12.2011 under section 143(3) of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 4.09 Cr. During the course of assessment, it was noticed that the assessee started its manufacturing activities w. e. f. 17.01.2004 i. e. during the financial year 2003-04 and had been claiming deduction under section 80-IC of the Act from assessment year 2004-05. The Assessee firm undertook substantial expansion during A.Y. 2009-10 under appeal and started claiming deduction u/s 80IC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pansion undertook by assessee is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that assessee was earlier granted exemption under section 80IC of the Act. The only dispute was whether assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80IC @ 100% or 25%. The assessee disclosed all the particulars of income in the return of income and has not made any wrong or false claim. The claim under section 80IC have been denied on the debatable issue and the whole issue is regarding interpretation of provisions of Section 80IC of the Act on which Tribunal also dismissed appeal of the assessee but appeal of the assessee is pending before High Court for consideration. He has submitted that ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Tirupati LPG Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion by claiming higher deduction under section 80IC. Therefore, penalty was correctly imposed on assessee and relied upon decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 and order of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Sunder Lal Chopra 2 ITR (TR) 790. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and material available on record. The facts as noted above in the impugned orders are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that assessee was eligible for deduction under section 80IC of the Act and has been claiming the same deduction from assessment year 2004-05 till 2008-09. The assessee in assessment year under appeal i.e. 2009-10 contended that since it has undertook substantial expansio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar under appeal by claiming it to be initial year. Prior to that, there may be no history against the assessee for making such a claim. The issue is wholly debatable and the appeal of the assessee is pending before Hon'ble High Court for consideration of the similar issue. Though, this Bench has not followed the decision of Delhi Bench in the case of Tirupati LPG Ltd.(supra) on quantum and decided the issue against the assessee on quantum, but there was favourable order for making such a claim under section 80IC of the Act. Therefore, it is a case where there may be a difference of opinion between the assessee firm and the Assessing Officer for claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act in 6th year @ 100%. 7. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provisions, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By no stretch of imagination can making an incorrect claim tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed by the assessee, 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. To attract penalty, the details supplied in the return must not be accurate, not exact or correct, not according to the truth or erroneous. Where there is no finding that any detail....