TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 996
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,30,45,220/levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in the return of income filed by it ? 4. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the respondent-assessee filed its return of income on 24.11.2015 by declaring total income of Rs. 11721,80,75,240/-. Thereafter, the respondent filed revised return of income dated 30.3.2017 declaring revised income of Rs. 11253,09,30,950/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(A) of the Act and the case of the respondent-assessee was selected for scrutiny. Pursuant to the scrutiny, notice u/s. 142(2) of the Act was issued to the respondent-assessee. Assessee filed its reply against the said notice. The assessment order came to be passed by AO on 12.12.2017 and thereby assessed total income at Rs. 11733,85,52,868/-. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said assessment order, the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (A) vide its order dated 29.3.2019 dismissed the appeal of the respondent-assessee and pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted in 2013(38) taxmann.com, 448. (SC). 11. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "7. As against this, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent pointed out that the language of Section 271(1)(c) had to be strictly construed, this being a taxing statute and more particularly the one providing for penalty. It was pointed out that unless the wording directly covered the assessee and the fact situation herein, there could not be any penalty under the Act. It was pointed out that there was no concealment or any inaccurate particulars regarding the income were submitted in the Return. Section 271(1)(c) is as under:- "271(1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income." A glance at this provision would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. In Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. [2007(6) SCC 329], this Court explained the terms "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars". The Court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), mens rea was necessary, as according to the Court, the word "inaccurate" signified a deliberate act or omission on behalf of the assessee. It went on to hold that Clause (iii) of Section 271(1) provided for a discretionary jurisdiction upon the Assessing Authority, inasmuch as the amount of penalty could not be less than the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of such concealment of particulars of income, but it may not exceed three times thereof. It was pointed out that the term "inaccurate particulars" was not defined anywhere in the Act and, therefore, it was held that furnishing of an assessment of the value of the property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have fail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... supra) was overruled. 9. We are not concerned in the present case with the mens rea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this case, as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate particulars. In Webster's Dictionary, the word "inaccurate" has been defined as:- "not accurate, not exact or correct; not according to truth; erroneous; as an inaccurate statement, copy or transcript"." 12. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the paragraph No. 9 of Mak Data (P) Ltd. (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "9. We are of the view that the surrender of income in this case is not voluntary in the sense that the offer of surrender was made in view of detection made by the AO in the search conducted in the sister concern of the assessee. In that situation, it cannot be said that the surrender of income was voluntary. AO during the course of assessment proceedings has noticed that certain documents comprising of share application forms, bank statements, memorandum of association of companies, affidavits, copies of Income Tax Returns and assessment orders and blank share transfer deeds duly signed, have been impounded in the cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be noted that the Appeal under Section 260A could be admitted only on the High Court being satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Janardhana Rao versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2005) 2 SCC 324, while dealing with the scope of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, observed as under : - "14. Without insisting on the statement of substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal and formulating the same at the time of admission, the High Court is not empowered to generally decide the appeal under Section 260A without adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 260A. Further, the High Court must make every effort to distinguish between a question of law and a substantial question of law. In exercise of powers under Section 260A, the findings of fact of the Tribunal cannot be disturbed. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with law in force at the relevant time. The conditions mentioned in Section 260A must be strictly fulfilled b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law." 19. Similarly, in Santosh Hazari Vs.Purushottam Tiwari (2001)3 SCC 179 a three judge Bench of this Court observed that: "A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be "substantial" a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, AIR 1962 SC 1314 (2001) 3 SCC 179 and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law "involving in the case" there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by....