TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1753
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the Order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the .CIT(A) be cancelled and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 2. The only issue raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied by the AO on account of furnishing of inaccurate of particulars of income. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a foreign company and engaged in the business of exploration, prospecting, production & marketing of natural gas and oil. The assessee has entered into an agreement in the financial year 1994-95 with L & T (Indian Company), in relation to production sharing contracts with the Government of India for exploration and extraction of natural oil and gas in the oil and gas fields situated at Dolka and Wavel in Gujarat. 3.1 Subsequently the L&T relinquished its share in the project and assigned its whole share in the project to the assessee. Accordingly the assessee is a sole operator of these oil fields as on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e return of income for the deduction under section 42 of the Act on the activities carried out by it. 4. It was in bonafide belief that it is entitled to claim deduction under section 42 of the income Tax Act. 5. It was also of the view that the article 15 of the production sharing contract allowed to claim deduction under section 42 of the Income Tax Act. 5. However the Ld. CIT-A noted that the assessee has mentioned in its notes to the return of income that they were engaged in exploration/extracting of mineral oil with the Government. Therefore it was entitled to claim the deduction under section 42 of the Act. The assessee as such has made the disclosure of all material facts, therefore, the ld. CIT-A deleted the addition the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT-A, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. Both the ld. DR and AR before us relied on the order of authorities below as favourable to them. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the instant case relates whether the assessee has claimed deduction under section 42 of the Act by furn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der: "Para 7 - "Having heard both the sides, we have carefully gone through the orders of authorities below. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) held that making incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of "particulars of income". The head-notes of the said decision reads as under: - "A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, suggests that in order to be covered 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 is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By no stretch of imagination can making an incorrect claim tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. There can be n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quantum proceedings which he could not substantiate in those proceedings was (i) bona fide and (ii) if he had disclosed all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income. In cases where explanation was offered, but was rejected as it could not be substantiated by the assessee, there would arise no presumption of concealment of the particulars of income that was added or disallowed and such assessee can show that the said explanation offered by him was a bona fide one and that he had disclosed all facts relating to such explanation and material to the computation of his total income during the quantum proceedings". Para 9 - In the present case, the assessee has disclosed all the material facts. It has also furnished the explanation, which is not only bona fide but the assessee has also substantiated the same by the fact that in original assessment, deduction under 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....