TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 1179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 11 lacs. 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration survey operations under section 133A of the Act were conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 8.2.2006. The assessee during the course of survey offered and thereafter declared additional income of Rs. 1 crore. The assessee in the return of income filed for the year under consideration claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act at Rs. 32,13,847/-. The said deduction under section 80IB of the Act was claimed on total business income of Rs. 1,07,12,824/-, which included the sum of Rs. 1 crore surrendered during the course of survey, which in turn was credited to the Profit & Loss Account as income surrendered. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee was not entitled to claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act on the said surrendered income in view of the ratio laid down in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT [262 ITR 278 (SC)] and National Leggured Works Vs. CIT [288 ITR 18 (P&H)]. Consequently, the income of the assessee was recomputed by treating the additional income offere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fference of opinion in granting deduction under section 80IB of the Act, does not merit levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: 1) The DCIT Vs. M/s Karna International ITA No.1347/Chd/2010 2) CIT Vs. Amar Nath (2008) 16 DTR (P&H)326 3) CIT Vs. S.D.Rice Mills 275 ITR 206 (P&H) 4) CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) 5) ACIT Vs. Perfect Forgings 11 ITR (Trib) 166 (Chd) 6. The learned D.R. for the Revenue placing reliance on the order of the authorities below further placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Chadha Sugars Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [135 ITD 42 (Del). 7. The learned A.R. for the assessee further placed reliance on the order of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd. in ITA Nos.609 to 611/Chd/2008 relating to assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 2000-01, order dated 28.11.2008 reported in (2009) [129 DTR (Chd)(Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9. The assessee included the said income in the Profit & Loss Account and income was declared at Rs. 1,07,12,824/- in the Profit & Loss Account. The assessee thereafter claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act on the said surrendered income of Rs. 1 crore. The said additional income declared by the assessee during the course of survey was assessed in the hands of the assessee as 'income from other sources' under the provisions of section 69A, 69B and 69C of the Act. The Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) denied deduction claimed under section 80IB of the Act on the said surrendered amount of Rs. 1 crore and consequently the deduction under section 80IB of the Act was recomputed. The assessee was held to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income because of non allowance of deduction under section 80IB of the Act on the surrendered income and consequently penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 11 lacs was levied. The plea of the assessee before us was that it had furnished complete particulates of its income in the return of income file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The denial of deduction under section 80IB of the Act on such surrendered income has been made by the authorities below by applying the ratio laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in National Leggured Works (supra) wherein it was held that the assessee could not be held to be entitled to claim of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act on incomes surrendered as a result of survey. In view of the settled position of law propagated by the Jurisdictional High Court in National Leggured Works (supra), the claim of the assessee by way of deduction under section 80IB of the Act was inadmissible and consequently was a false claim made by the assessee, which makes it exigible to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. We further find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held as under: "It is true that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of the income of the assessee, but it cannot be disputed that the claim made by the assessee needs to be bonafide. If the claim besides being i....