TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 306
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ddition of the following items: i. Interest income on the FDR and saving bank account amounting to Rs. 34,912/- which was not disclosed in the income tax return. ii. Disallowance of the expenses for accounting charges and other expenses amounting to Rs. 24,612/- respectively against the interest income received from the partnership firm. 4. The AO in the assessment order dated 20th November 2015 initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act on account of concealment/furnishing inaccurate particular of income. 5. The assessee during the penalty proceedings contended that he failed to disclose the interest income in the income tax return inadvertently. 6. Similarly the assessee contended that he has actually incurred an expense of Rs. 24,612 on account of salary for the maintenance of the books of accounts and bank charges of Rs. 612 against the interest income received from the partnership firm. As such the assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particular of income as alleged in the show cause notice. 7. However the AO disagreed with the contention of the assessee by observing that the assessee has not disc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... get away from the penal action u/s, 271(l)(c) of the Act merely on the ground that this is a mere claim of expenses. In my opinion the decision of Hon'bie Supreme Court as given in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P.) Ltd. is not applicable to the case of the appellant as such above claim of Rs. 24,612/- is not legally correct and is apparently not allowable. In view of these facts, it is held that the AO has correctly levied the penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) on this addition of Rs. 24,612/~ also and therefore the same is confirmed. Thus the ground of appeal of the appellant is dismissed." 9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. The learned AR before us submitted that considering the total income of the assessee declared in the return of income for Rs. 41,99,530/- it cannot be said that the assessee has either concealed the particular of income or furnished inaccurate particular of income for the amount of Rs. 34,912/- and 24,612/- which is quite meagre to the income declared by the assessee. 10. On the other hand the learner DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 11. In the present case th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urate particular of income. In holding so we find support and guide from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158 where it was held as under: "The word 'particulars' must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. In the instant case, there was no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)( c). A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars." 14. In view of the above, we disagree with the finding of the authorities below. Accordingly we set aside the finding of the learned CIT (A) with the direction to the AO to delete the penalty imposed by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 15. Before we part with the issue/appeal as discussed above, it is pertin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of lockdown". Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in an order dated 15th April 2020, has, besides extending the validity of all interim orders, has also observed that, "It is also clarified that while calculating time for disposal of matters made time-bound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly", and also observed that "arrangement continued by an order dated 26th March 2020 till 30th April 2020 shall continue further till 15th June 2020". It has been an unprecedented situation not only in India but all over the world. Government of India has, vide notification dated 19th February 2020, taken the stand that, the coronavirus "should be considered a case of natural calamity and FMC (i.e. force majeure clause) maybe invoked, wherever considered appropriate, following the due procedure...". The term 'force majeure' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, as 'an event or effect that can be neither anticipated nor controlled' When such is the position, and it is official....