Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Pr. Cit Vs Samtel India LTD (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 43/2017
Date of Judgement/Order : 09/07/2018
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.

Pr. CIT Vs Samtel India LTD (Delhi High Court)

From the facts of this case it is clear that the assessee disclosed all the particulars of his income. The AO has disallowed his claim without holding it to be bogus or false. Hence, the genuineness of the loss occurred is not at question here. The Supreme Court while elaborating the scope of section 271(1)(c) in CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd [2010] 322 ITR 158 held that-

A glance of provision of section 271 (l) (c) would suggest that in order to be covered, 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 instant case was not the case of concealment of the income. That was not the case of the revenue either. It was an admitted position in the instant case that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It was not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee could not be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The revenue argued that submitting an incorrect claim in law for the expenditure on interest would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income. Such cannot be the interpretation of the concerned words. The words are plain and simple. In order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Similarly, in the present scenario, the assessee cannot be penalized for making a claim which in itself is unsustainable in law. The Supreme Court further held in the Reliance Petrochemicals case that-

“Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that, by itself, would not attract the penalty under section 271(1) (c). If the contention of the revenue was accepted, then in case of every return where the claim made was not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee would invite penalty under section 271(1)(c)

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.


Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

One Comment

  1. indrajeet gupta says:

    Can an Assessee individually file appleal to a commissioner of income tax in form 35 or under form -3 if time of reply have been lapse.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
July 2024