TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 699
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 4,25,030/-, Rs. 18,30,060/- and Rs. 12,74,580/- in the Asstt.Years 2008-09 to 2010-11 respectively, which were imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Facts on all vital points are common in all these assessment years. For the facility of reference, we take up the facts from the Asstt.Year 2009-10, because on the basis of finding of the Asstt.Year 2009-10, assessment was reopened in the Asstt.Year 2008-09, and the assessment order was passed on 30.8.2013 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, whereas assessment in the Asstt.Year 2009-10 was framed under section 143(3) on 19.12.2011. 4. Before adverting to the facts leading to imposition of penalty in all th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ording to the AO, the assessee has only made an application to the CBDT, but its proposal for development of industrial park was not accepted and notified by the CBDT. Hence, the assessee was not entitled for claiming deduction under section 80IA(4). It has claimed deduction of Rs. 16,99,120/- in the Asstt.Year 2008-09, Rs. 59,22,530/- in the Asstt.Year 2009-10 and Rs. 41,25,775/- in the Asstt.Year 2010-11. The ld.counsel for the assessee during the course of hearing submitted a list of events which read as under: "1) Industrial Park Scheme Started on 16-8-2007 2) Appl. To C B D T for Notification of Scheme by C B D T. 27-12-2007 3) I.T. Return filed stating claim and other Basic Details for order u/s. 143( 1) was pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It has filed return on 27.9.2008 in the Asstt.Year 2009-10. According to the assessee, when return under section 139(1) was filed for the Asstt.Year 008-09, i.e. 12.9.2008 its application for sanction of claim for development of industrial park was pending with CBDT and it was hopeful of getting approval. Therefore, it has claimed deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. It has not furnished inaccurate particulars, rather it has disclosed all the details. The deduction could not be granted to the assessee because ultimately its proposal was not approved by the CBDT. Had the assessee not made claim and its scheme was got approved, then it would be prohibited to make such claim. He also pointed out that order of the CBDT was set asi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty. (i)and (Income-tax Officer,)** ** ** (iii) in the cases referred to in Clause (c) or Clause (d), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times, the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or fringe benefit the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income or fringe benefits: Explanation 1- Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act, (A) Such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the CIT to be false, or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 271(1)(c) postulates two situations; (a) first whether in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income under the provisions of the Act, the assessee fails to offer an explanation or the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be false by the Assessing Officer or Learned CIT(Appeal); and, (b) where in respect of any fact, material to the computation of total income under the provisions of the Act, the assessee is not able to substantiate the explanation and the assessee fails, to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that the assessee had disclosed all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of the total income. Under first situation, the deeming fiction would come to play if ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial undertaking was not approved by the CBDT. This proposal appears to have been still pending because the assessee pursued the matter with the CBDT. Its proposal was rejected on 13.5.2014, but the assessee has challenged such rejection before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court by way of SCA. Its application was allowed on 11.9.2017. The ld.counsel for the assessee was unable to point out the status of the assessee's proposal before the CBDT after the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. It appears that the assessee was prima facie of the view that its scheme would be approved and it will be entitled for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. When the assessment proceedings were going on, its proposal was pending before the CB....