TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 849
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by the Hon'ble CIT Appeals (5) is unsustainable both on facts and in law. 2. The Hon'ble CIT (A) failed to note that all the particulars in relation to purchase and sale of shares including contract notes, Bank statements, Demat accounts were furnished during the course of assessment proceedings and there is no specific remark against documents submitted. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals) failed to note that in spite of favourable Judgements in favour of the appellant} the appellant has voluntarily surrendered the income vide its letter dt. 29-11-2016 to avoid litigations and to buy peace. 4. The Learned CIT(Appeals) failed to note that in the investigation carried out by the Directorate of Investigation of Kolkata, there was no specific material available against the appellant. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the above grounds of appeal". 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual and Director of different companies which are engaged in the business of trading in Polymer products, filed her return of income for the A.Y 2014-15 on 26.03.2015 admitting income of Rs. 19,62,150/-. The AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y agreed to offer the capital gain to tax. The assessee also further prayed that the Department may not levy any penalty on such other income. The AO accordingly accepted the long term capital gain offered to tax and brought it to tax u/s 68 of the I.T. Act and brought it to tax. 4. Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee submitted a reply reiterating that the income has been offered to tax only to buy peace with the Department and not due to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. The AO however, held that as discussed in the assessment order, the LTCG is bogus and pre-determined method only to bring back the unaccounted money and therefore, it is liable to a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He accordingly levied the minimum penalty of Rs. 3,83,060/-. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT (A) confirmed the order of the AO and the assessee is in second appeal before us. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee Shri K.C. Devdas submitted that the assessee, while filing the original return of income had clearly stated that the assessee has earned long term capital gain from sale of shar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Present is not the case of concealment of the income. That is not the case of the Revenue either. However, the learned Counsel for revenue suggested that by making incorrect claim for the expenditure on interest, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of the 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 would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income". We do not think that such can be the interpretation of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that the explanation must be preceded by a finding as to how and in what manner, the assessee had furnished the particulars of his income. The Court ultimately went on to hold that the element of mens rea was essential. It was only on the point of mens rea that the judgment in Dilip N. Shroff's case (supra) was upset. In Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra), after quoting from section 271 extensively and also considering section 271(1)(c), the Court came to the conclusion that since section 271(1)(c) indicated the element of strict liability on the assessee for the concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing Return, there was no necessity of mens rea. The Court went on to hold that the objective behind enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with Explanations indicated with the said section was for providing remedy for loss of revenue and such a penalty was a civil liability and, therefore, wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as was the case in the matter of ....