TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 568
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year under consideration on 29.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 2,28,68,970/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 25.10.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,61,81,111/- by making various additions. 3. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part relief to the assessee. The Assessing Officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the same and levied penalty of Rs. 3,59,646/- being 100% of the tax to be evaded. 5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1] The assessee submits that the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law since the notice issued by the learned A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) dated 25.10.2016 was null and void. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer, however, the penalty proceedings were dropped and no penalty was levied. He submitted that since the matter was sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the assessee made the claim and all the disclosures in audited accounts etc were made. 8. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra), he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that making an incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of income. He accordingly submitted that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is not justified. 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee that since the matter was in favour of the assessee till the reversal of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the assessee made a claim to keep the innings open. 11. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that a mere making of claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court read as under: "9. We are not concerned in the present case with the mens rea. However, we have to only see as to whethe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad 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 in an exaggerated amount) claimed, and both types attempt to reduce the taxable income and, therefore, both types amount to concealment of particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We do not agree, as the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return, which details, in themselves, were not found to ....