TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1098
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal in ITA No.86/PUN/2021 for the assessment year 2010-11 are stated herein. ITA No.86/PUN/2021, A.Y. 2010-11 : 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of insulated wires and cables, optical fiber cables, corrugated PVC, form sheets, finance, trading in goods, rendering services, leasing, letting out of property etc. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2010-11 was filed on 13.10.2010 disclosing the total income of Rs.2,47,42,390/-. Subsequent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urred on derivatives. 6. Being aggrieved by the above order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the respondent-assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order quashed the penalty proceedings on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not recorded the requisite satisfaction in the assessment order by non-striking off the specific limb in the show cause notice, become fatal to the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ventura Textiles Ltd. vs. CIT, 117 taxmann.com 182 and CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) had quashed the penalty proceedings. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us in the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer was confirmed. Subsequent to the passing of order by the ITAT, the Assessing Officer had levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) had quashed the penalty by holding that the Assessing Officer had not recorded any satisfaction in the assessment order nor struck off the relevant limb of the show-cause notice placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Samson Perinchery (supra). 11. We have carefully gone through the relevant assessment order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) as well as the order of the ITAT in quantum appeal. It would clearly reveal that it is a case of disallowance of a claim by Assessing Officer, which does not tantamount furnishi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. [Para 7] Therefore, it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c ) exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed, because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. [Para 8] 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. Suc....