TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2.The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- "(i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is not attracted even if the Assessee had claimed the unpaid interest to the schedule bank in its profit and loss account and failed to disallow the same under Sec.43B(e) of the Incometax Act? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessee has proved that the furnishing of inaccurate particulars leading to incorrect claim of expenditure was inadvertent even when no steps were taken by the Assessee to file a Revised Return despite being aware of the fact that it had made a wrong claim of expenditure in its pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. The assessee submitted their reply along with a petition under Section 154 of the Act for rectification of the mistake and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Private Limited vs. CIT reported in (2012) 348 ITR 306 (Kalcutta). The Assessing Officer by order dated 21.09.2015, held that the assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars and the provision of Section 271(1)(c) would stand attracted. Further, it was observed that furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee has resulted in lesser income to the tune of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- being returned for the relevant assessment year 2012-13. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer imposed minimum penalty of Rs. 50....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ticulars of income, or offered an explanation which it could not substantiate on the basis of material which it was relying upon. Further, the CIT(A) applied the decision in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Private Limited (supra) and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 10.The Revenue carried the matter by way of appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal once again went through the factual details and took note of the reply given by the assessee to the query raised by the Assessing Officer that the assessee company has been declared as a sick industrial company under Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, vide order dated 19.04.2011 and Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction issued directions to the lenders a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the decision in Price Waterhouse Coopers Private Limited (supra), will not apply to the facts of the case, as in the said case, the assessee had filed a revised return. 13.In our considered view, the decision in Mak Data P. Ltd. (supra) would not be of any assistance to the case of the Revenue. The said case arose out of a survey proceedings under Section 133A of the Act and in the background of those facts, the Court examined the conduct of the assessee vis-a-vis the need to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Admittedly, the case on hand is not a case of survey, but it is a case where the assessee having come to know about the same, after the Assessing Officer pointed it out, immediately filed petition for rectific....