TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment was framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai for the assessment year 2016-17 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') vide order dated 27.12.2019. The impugned penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for the assessment year 2016-18 vide order dated 31.10.2021. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of disallowance made u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act by DSIR and adopted by AO though the cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,057/- which was disallowed. Similarly, the assessee has claimed weighted deduction on revenue expenditure at Rs. 46,18,50,669/- whereas as per Form No.3CL, the DSIR has allowed only a sum of Rs. 45,96,40,000/- u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the differential amount of Rs. 22,10,000/- and added to the returned income of the assessee. Accordingly, the following deductions were disallowed and added to the returned income of the assessee:- Heads of Income Rs. B. Addition : weighted portion u/s. 35(2AB) - under capital 1,07,98,057 C. Addition : weighted portion u/s. 35(2AB) - under revenue 22,10,000 Against this quantum addition or disallowance u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act, on capital expenditure and revenue ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty by observing in para 5.3 & 5.5 as under:- "5.3 I have considered the submission of the appellant in view of the facts described by the ld.AO in the penalty order. The appellant has contended that the appellant company did not file any inaccurate particular of income as DSIR, subject to certain terms and conditions, did not allow the entire amount of the deduction claimed by the appellant company. In my considered opinion the plea of the appellant does not have much strength. From the facts of the case, it transpires that the appellant company had inflated its claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Had not the assessee'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of income as the returned income filed by the assessee with the Department for the relevant assessment year was much before the receipt of certificate from DSIR. For this, the ld.counsel relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2010) 322 ITR 158. 6. On the other hand, the ld.senior DR stated that this is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income because the DSIR is the authority who certify the claim of weighted deduction for capital and revenue expenditure u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. The ld.senior DR argued that the Act has provided for obtaining the DSIR certificate and assessee have to claim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITR-OL 339 (Mad), wherein it is held that in the absence of due care, it did not mean that the assessee was guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income and hence, the imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on assessee's held not justified. The Hon'ble Madras High Court applied the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). Further, as contended by the ld.counsel for the assessee and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd., supra, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded "the meaning of the term 'particulars' used in section 271(....