TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 237
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act. 1.2 The learned CIT (A) and the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the legal position emerging from and rule of law laid down in various judicial pronouncements and the submissions made/explanation offered by the appellant. 1.3 It is submitted that the Notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(l)(c) of the Act issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer does not indicate the specific charge for which penalty p,, mgs were initiated. It is submitted that the Order imposing penalty u/section 271(l)(c) is vitiated and may accordingly be quashed / struck/ b / set aside as bad in law and without jurisdiction. The appellant prays that penalty imposed by the Ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly be cancelled/deleted as the same is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 3. The return of income declaring NIL income was filed on 30/09/2009 by the assessee. The assessee is registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, vide order dated 22/5/1976 and was also allowed the benefit of 80G (5)(vi). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. During the pendency of scrutiny assessment, the assessee filed revised return on 24/3/2011 and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....grant corpus donation to the other charitable trusts. During the earlier years, the assessee had exercised the option for accumulation u/s 11(2) of the Act and the service was accumulated for the charitable objects of the trust as under:- Sr. No. Assessment Year Amount 1 2006-07 4,66,00,000/- 2 2007-08 10,50,00,000/- 3 2008-09 10,00,00,000/- TOTAL: 25,16,00,000/- While granting the donations to other charitable trust, the surplus accumulated u/s 11(2) of the Act as discussed above got utilized to the extent of Rs. 20 Crores, thus, the Provisions of Section 11(3) (c)/11(3) (d) of the Act got attracted. In view of the above, the assessee computed revised return of income under revised statement of computation of total income for the above year and has offered to tax the said deemed income u/s 11(3) of the Act. The Ld. AR further pointed out that the assessee also paid the tax of Rs. 7,75,69,270/- payable as per the said revised statement of computation of total income. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has field the revised return of income for the present Assessment Year on its own account and voluntarily being pointed out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the ITA No. 4913/Del/2015 decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." Thus, Additional Ground No. (ii) of the assessee's appeal is allowed. Since the inception of the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed." 7.1. Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. 19. It was tried to be suggested that Section 14A of the Act specifically excluded the deductions in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. It was further pointed out that the dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms; (i) an item of receipt may be suppressed fraudulently; (ii) an item of expenditure may be falsely (or....