2025 (11) TMI 1617

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 respectively passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Bench-D, (For short "the Tribunal"). 3. Tax Appeal No. 256 of 2012 is admitted vide order dated 09.08.2012 for consideration of the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 27,17,33,613/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in confirming the order of the CIT(A) in holding that no penalty should be levied under section 271(1)(c) if the tax liability as per the return of income and order giving effect to CIT(A)/ITAT remains the same due to provisions of MAT ?" 4. Tax Appeal Nos. 279, 280 and 281 of 2012 are admitted vide common order dated 09.08.2012 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1) (c) read with section 275(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1,20,48,703/- 10. The Assessing Officer also initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 11. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The penalty proceedings were kept in abeyance till the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decided the quantum appeal. 12. CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the quantum appeal vide order dated 26.07.2007 confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer insofar as deduction under section 42 of the Act for Hazira and Bhandut block, and Surat block, deduction under section 80IB(9) of the Act and claim of depreciation on pipelines. CIT(Appeals) however allowed depreciation at the rate of 80% on drilling Well instead of 10% restricted by the Assessing Officer and allowed the expenses on school building over a period of 10 years. 13. Being aggrieved by the order passed by CIT(Appeals), both the assessee and Revenue preferred cross appeals before the Tribunal. The tribunal, vide order dated 19.03.2008 upheld the decision of CIT(Appeals) insofar as disallowance of deduction under section 42 of the Act for Hazir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word "particulars" used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case if strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provisions cannot be invoked. By no stretch of imagination can making an incorrect claim tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed by the assessee, because that is the only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars on his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. To attract penalty, the details supplied in the return must not be accurate, not exact or correct, no according to the truth or erroneous. Where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....closed all facts relating to such explanation and material to the computation of his total income during the quantum proceedings.' 9. In the present case, the assessee has disclosed all the material facts. It is also furnished the explanation, which is not only bona fide but the assessee has also substantiated the same by the fact in original assessment, deduction under section 42 as well as depreciation claim was allowed. Moreover, the appeal of assessee on disallowance claimed under section 42 of Rs. 4,58,84,791/- is admitted by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court under section 260A. In this view of the matter, in our opinion it is not a fit case to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c). Therefore, penalty confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is respect of both the items of additions/disallowances is hereby deleted." 10. In the assessment year 2002-03 in cross appeal being No. 2476/Ahd/2008 & 2618/Ahd/2008 we have cancelled the penalty, which is confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed under section 42 and in respect of claim of depreciation on land based platform, which was restricted from 25% to 10%. Further in that order, the appeal of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CIT(A) in deleting the penalty in respect of disallowance of deduction, claimed u/s.42, disallowance of depreciation on land based drilling platform, disallowance of depreciation on 36" 14 km. pipeline. We also confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that no penalty should be levied u/s.271(1)(c) if the tax liability as per the return of income and order giving effect to CIT(A)/ITAT remains the same due to provisions of MAT. As far the penalty imposed on disallowance on School building is concerned, we find that since the assessee has made bona fide claim in the return of income, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty on this disallowance also. We therefore, find no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is confirmed." 16. Tax Appeal Nos. 279, 280 and 281 of 2012 are also filed challenging the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as above and therefore, separate facts are not recorded as the issue involved in all the appeals is the same. 17. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar submitted that as the Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of Minimum Alternate Tax, penalty for concealment of income would not be leviable....