COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-I) Vs. JAKSON LTD.
February, 01st 2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 29.01. 2013
+ ITA 48/2013
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-I)
JAKSON LTD. ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel
For the Respondent : None
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
These appeals by the revenue arise out of the common order dated
22.06.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal in ITA
No.4076/Del/2011 and 4073/Del/2011 pertaining to the assessment years
2003-04 and 2004-05.
2. In both these matters the question is with regard to penalties under
section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In respect of the
assessment year 2003-04 the penalty imposed by the assessing officer
ITA No.48 & 49/2013 Page 1 of 4
was `15.4 lakhs whereas in respect of the assessment year 2004-05 the
penalty amount was `9.30 lakhs. In both the cases the penalty was
imposed because of the reason that the deduction claimed under section
80-IB by the respondent-assessee was ultimately allowed at a lower level.
We may take the case of the assessment year 2003-04. Initially, the
assessee had claimed deduction under section 80-IB of `2,52,41,632/-.
However, subsequently the respondent-assessee filed a revised return in
which he claimed an enhanced deduction under section 80-IB of
`2,67,48,176/-. In the penalty proceedings the computation with regard
to the deduction under section 80-IB has ultimately been taken at
`2,52,41,632/-, which is the same as the amount claimed by the
respondent-assessee at the time of filing of the original return. The
penalty has been levied on the respondent-assessee because the claim
under section 80-IB in the revised return has not been accepted and has
been reduced to `2,52,41,632/-. Similar facts have arisen in respect of
the assessment year 2004-05.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) had deleted the said
penalty and the revenue was in appeal before the Tribunal.
ITA No.48 & 49/2013 Page 2 of 4
4. The Tribunal after examining the facts and circumstances of the
case found that the same was covered by the Supreme Court decision in
the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts (P)
Ltd.: (2010) 322 ITR 158 SC. The Supreme Court, in that decision, was
also concerned with penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the said Act. The
Supreme Court observed as under:-
"9. We are not concerned in the present case with the mens
rea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this case,
as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate
particulars. In Webster's Dictionary, the word "inaccurate"
has been defined as:
"not accurate, not exact or correct; not according to
truth; erroneous; as an inaccurate statement, copy or
We have already seen the meaning of the word "particulars"
in the earlier part of this judgment. Reading the words in
conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the
Return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not
according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add here
that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied
by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or
erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be
no question of inviting the penalty under
Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim,
which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to
furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the
assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to
the inaccurate particulars."
ITA No.48 & 49/2013 Page 3 of 4
5. It is apparent from the above extract, that the mere making of a
claim which is ultimately held not to be sustainable in law, would not
amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of an
assessee. In the present appeals it is only that the claims of deduction
under Section 80IB have been downscaled. This, by itself, would not
mean that it is a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Furthermore, there is no finding in the penalty order as to which part of
the income the assessee had concealed and with regard to which
particular facet of his income had the assessee provided inaccurate
particulars thereof. In these circumstances, we feel that the Tribunal has
correctly applied the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (supra). No substantial question of law
arises for our consideration in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
JANUARY 29, 2013/hs
ITA No.48 & 49/2013 Page 4 of 4