TARANG TEXTILES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R

2.1. On the other hand, Shri, A. Rajhans, ld. DR, defended the imposition as well as confirmation of penalty.

2.2. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing/processing of texturised, twisted yarn /fabrics and also trading in yarn/cloths. The assessee declared income of Rs.5,89,994/- in its return filed on 31/10/2005. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act vide assessment order dated 30/11/2011 assessing the income at Rs.18,57,850/- after making addition to the extent of Rs.15,34,981/- disallowing the claim of set off of brought forward depreciation of Assessment year 1996-97 amounting to Rs.3,31,503/-. The ld. Assessing Officer initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the penalty was confirmed, against which the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal.

2.3. If the observation made in the assessment order/penalty order, leading to addition/penalty made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, it is noted that the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed set off of brought forward of unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs.3,31,503/-, claimed by the assessee. I am of the view, even if a wrong claim is made by the assessee that ipso facto cannot lead to concealment. It is the duty of the Assessing Officer to take a correct decision. Even if a wrong claim has been made, it may be a good case for quantum addition but certainly not for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. This proposition is sheltered by the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) and CIT vs Ajaib Singh & Company 253 ITR 630( P &H). While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) observed as under:-

“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.” 2.4. In the light of the above observation, I are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion of section 271(1)(C) of the Act for ready reference and analysis:-

Section 271(1)(c) is as under:-

"271(1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income." 2.5. A glance at this provision 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. Present is not the case of concealment of the income. That is not the case of the Revenue either. As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word "particular" is a detail or details (in plural sense); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word "particulars" used in the Section 271(1)(c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. It is an admitted position in the present case that no information given in the Return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It is not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. 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 inaccurate particulars. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009(9) SCC 589], where Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Hon'ble Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008(13) SCC 369], as also, the decision in Union of India Vs.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009(13) SCC 448] and reiterated in para 13 that:-

"13. It goes without saying that for applicability of Section 271(1)(c), conditions stated therein must exist."

Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under Section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. In Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. [2007(6) SCC 329], Hon'ble Court explained the terms "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars". The Court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), mens rea was necessary, as according to the Court, the word "inaccurate" signified a deliberate act or omission on behalf of the assessee. It went on to hold that Clause (iii) of Section 271(1) provided for a discretionary jurisdiction upon the Assessing Authority, inasmuch as the amount of penalty could not be less than the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of such concealment of particulars of income, but it may not exceed three times thereof. It was pointed out that the term "inaccurate particulars" was not defined anywhere in the Act and, therefore, it was held that furnishing of an assessment of the value of the property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that the explanation must be preceded by a finding as to how and in what manner, the assessee had furnished the particulars of his income. The Court ultimately went on to hold that the element of mens rea was essential. It was only on the point of mens rea that the judgment in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. was upset. In Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (cited supra), after quoting from Section 271 extensively and also considering Section 271(1)(c), the Court came to the conclusion that since Section 271(1)(c) indicated the element of strict liability on the assessee for the concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing Return, there was no necessity of mens rea. The Court went on to hold that the objective behind enactment of Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanations indicated with the said Section was for providing remedy for loss of revenue and such a penalty was a civil liability and, therefore, willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as was the case in the matter of prosecution under Section 276-C of the Act. The basic reason why decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra) was overruled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (cited supra), was that according to the Court the effect and difference between Section 271(1)(c) and Section 276-C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra). However, it must be pointed out that in Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (cited supra), no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra), where the Court explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and inaccurate". It was only the ultimate inference in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra) to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra) was overruled. I am not concerned in the present case with the mens rea. However, I 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". I have already seen the meaning of the word "particulars" in the earlier part of this order. 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. I 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. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that at least penalty is not leviable, therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

This order was pronounced in the open in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 01/09/2015.