Case Law Details
ITAT held in ACIT Vs Ms Shyam Basic that if the assessee had made a wrong claim in the return of income but had furnished full particulars in its return of income then it would not amount to concealment if income and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied.
Moreover for levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) particulars had to be inaccurate and inaccurate particulars means the details filed in the return of income were not accurate or exact or correct according to truth or erroneous.
Facts of the case:
Assessee had received dividend of Rs 1,83,157/- which was an exempt income. The assessee had disallowed a sum of Rs 9735/- u/s 14A for expenses related with exempt income but AO on the other hand was not satisfied with assessee and disallowed Rs 92,41,858/-and levied penalty of Rs 31,41,308/- u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.
Contention of the assessee:
Assessee was of the view that as it had furnished all the particulars of its income and had not concealed any income. All the particulars were also correct so penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not levied
More over it was just the difference in opinion that AO was applying rule 8D on the exempt income So with that penalty could not be levied. Penalty could only be levied if assessee had furnished incorrect particulars but assessee had furnished all the correct particulars so penalty could not be levied.
Contention of the revenue:
Revenue was of the view that as the assessee had concealed the income by not applying rule 8D for calculation of expense related with the exempted income. As there was addition of Rs 92,41,858/- So penalty u/s 271(1)(c) had to be levied.
Held by ITAT:
ITAT after relying on the case of Hon’ble High Court in the case of ACB India Limited vs. ACIT in ITA No. 615/2014 and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of EspireInfolabs (P) Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 4190 and 4091/Del/2013 dated 6.6.2014 in which it was held that if any information furnished by the assessee in its return of income was not incorrect or inaccurate then penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied.
