Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: empanelment :: form 3cd :: TDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT Audit :: cpt :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: due date for vat payment
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

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
        ITA 49/2013

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-I)
                                      ... Appellant

                                        versus

JAKSON LTD.                                                      ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel
For the Respondent           : None


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

                                  JUDGMENT

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
             transcript."




        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



                                                    R.V.EASWAR, J
JANUARY 29, 2013/hs




ITA No.48 & 49/2013                                             Page 4 of 4
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Quality Assurance Services Testing and Re-testing

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions