Case Law Details
Aeropure UV Systems Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune)
The Pune ITAT deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that a bonafide difference in share valuation methodology cannot be treated as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The assessee had issued shares at a premium based on a valuation report using multiple methods (NAV, DCF, and Fair Value). The Assessing Officer rejected this approach, adopted NAV method, and made an addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b), which was partly sustained by CIT(A). Subsequently, penalty of ₹4.83 lakh was levied alleging inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had relied on a recognized valuation method supported by a Chartered Accountant’s report, and the dispute was merely about the appropriateness of the method. Relying on judicial precedents including Reliance Petroproducts, it held that making an incorrect or unsustainable claim does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
Accordingly, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and directed deletion of the penalty.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16.
2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
“1. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in levying penalty of Rs.4,83,285/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee company without appreciating the facts involved, the law and the detailed submissions made by the assessee its proper perspective.
2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute all or any of the above grounds of appeal.’
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of delivering solutions for air and surface quality, based on ultraviolet germicidal irradiation technology to the India and in International markets. The return of income for year under consideration was filed on 26.09.2015 declaring Nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) respectively were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee company had offered its shares at the value of Rs.30/-per share including premium of Rs.20/- per share. For the purposes of issue of these shares, the assessee company obtained a share value report from an independent Chartered Accountant which forms the basis for determination of fair market value as provided u/s 56 of the IT Act. The valuation of shares was based on the weighted average method consisting of three methods i.e. (a) NAV method, (b) Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method and (c) Fair Value (FV). However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the FMV as per NAV method is appropriate and the method adopted by the assessee is not correct. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added share premium of Rs.52,13,320/- received @ Rs.20/-per share over and above the face value of the share at Rs.10/- per share and added the same to the total income of the assesse u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act were also initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee preferred an appeal against the above assessment order wherein Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed the appeal and restricted the addition of Rs.52,13,320/- to Rs.15,63,996/- only and deleted the rest of the addition of Rs.36,49,324/-. While partly allowing the appeal of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC held that an option is available to the assessee either to choose NAV method or to choose DCF method and the Assessing Officer cannot adopt a method of his own choice. Subsequently, vide order dated 27.09.2021 penalty of Rs.4,83,275/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs.15,63,996/-.
4. Being aggrieved with the above penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the penalty of Rs.4,83,275/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.
5. It is the above order against which the assessee in appeal before this Tribunal.
6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and copy of case laws furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that it is the contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that there is no case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In support of this contention, Ld. AR relied on following decisions/judgement :-
(i) CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.[(2010) 322 ITR 158].
(ii) Sathe Biscuit & Chocolate Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT [(2010) 31 CCH 329].
(iii) ITO vs. Sharada Construction & Investment Company [(2014) 40 CCH 847].
6.1 Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A).
7. We have carefully gone through the above case laws relied on by the assessee. In this regard, we find that in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) it was held that making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was also held in this case that merely because the assessee claimed deduction which has not been accepted by the Revenue, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not attracted.
8. We further find that in the case of Sathe Biscuit & Chocolate Co. Ltd. (supra), it was held that, even if the assessee makes an inaccurate claim in law same cannot be stated that the assessee has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
9. Similarly we also find that in the case of Sharada Construction & Investment Company (supra), coordinate bench of this Tribunal held that the assessee could not be settled with penal consequences merely because a bona-fide legal claim was made in the return and the same has not been accepted by the tax authorities or appellate authorities and assessee could not be said to have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
10. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and respectfully following the above decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has not concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore we deem it fit to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.4,83,275/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on this 20th day of April, 2026.
Author Bio
