TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2013-14. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a firm engaged in manufacturing and trading of edible oil and oil seeds. For the Assessment Year 2013-14, the assessee filed its Return of Income on 12- 10-2013 admitting total income of Rs. 1,09,87,527/-. Assessment was completed making a disallowance the claim of deduction u/s. 10(34) namely dividend income of Rs. 10,31,750/- received by the assessee from Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd.. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.1. On appeal against the quantum addition, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. It is the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the particulars of his income furnished inaccurate particulars of such income". The present was not a case of concealment of the income. As regards the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. The words "inaccurate particulars" mean that the details supplied in the Return are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. In the absence of a finding by the AO that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, there would be no question of inviting penalty u/s 271 (1) (C). (ii) The argument of the revenue that "submitting an incorrect claim for expenditure would amount to giving i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnished inaccurate particulars. 3 Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. JayarajTalkies (1999) 239 ITR 914 (Mad) has held that mere addition of income or surrender of income did not imply concealment of income where the assessee surrendered certain amount to assessment because it was unable to substantiate its claims with necessary vouchers 4 Supreme Court Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 253, 1970 SCR (1) 753 has held that there would be no s. 271 (l)(c) penalty for a "bona fide/ inadvertent/ human error" 5 T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT (2007) 161 Taxmann 340 (SC) held that a mere omission or negligence does not constitute a deliberate act suppression very [Concealment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidered opinion that decision of Honable Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Product Private Limited (supra) is not applicable to the case as the facts are clearly distinguishable. It is not a simple case of assessee making wrong claim and Assessing Officer denying it. In this case there is no doubt that Rajkot Nagrik Sahkari Bank is not subjected to dividend distribution tax and therefore provision of section 10(34) did not apply to assessee. Therefore making claim of exempt income is not merely a case of legal claim not have been sustainable under law but case of misrepresentation of facts and furnishing incorrect particulars of income. The action of Assessing Officer therefore calls for no interference. The Penalty is co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars of income and therefore the penalty levied is sustainable in law. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. It's clear from assessment and reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee for earlier assessment years 2008-09 to 2012-13, the Ld. A.O. has not levied Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on the very same issue of claim u/s. 10(34) on the dividend income received by the assessee. However only for the present A.Y. 2013-14, the Ld. A.O. levied penalty, which is inconsistent with that of the earlier assessment years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. has held the words "inaccurate particul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th of Tax Audit Report - Assessing Officer disallowed claim on ground that production had been started in current year by assessee and, therefore, it could not be said to have been already engaged in business of manufacturing He also levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on ground of concealment of income - Tribunal reached to conclusion that merely because claim on merit was not granted, penalty could not be levied It held that disallowance of claim of depreciation could not give rise to any question of concealment of income Whether Tribunal was right in so holding - Held, yes [Para 13] [In favour of assessee]" 8.2. The Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. reported in [2021] 132 taxmann.com 42 (Bombay) held as follow....