VIJAY BHAGCHAND BAFNA,SHIRPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, DHULE, DHULE

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

Vijay Bhagchand Bafna, Shirpur [A] Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. For the A.Y.2015-16 assessee has filed Return of Income electronically on 29.04.2016 declaring total income of Rs.23,93,238/-. The Assessing Officer(AO) received information that assessee had purchased agricultural land at Survey No.4/1A, Shirpur for Rs.36,00,000/- along with three other persons, but Government Valuation of said land was Rs.65,67,000/-. The AO issued noticed u/sec.148 on the ground that income has escaped assessment as per section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee filed Return of Income in response to notice u/sec.148 of the Act showing income at Rs.31,15,120/-. The assessment was completed accepting returned income. The AO levied penalty u/sec.271(1)(c) vide order dated 25.03.2019. The only issue is difference of actual amount paid by assessee for the purchase of agricultural land and the Government Valuation, the AO held that there was a deemed income as per Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act of Rs.7,41,750/-, though the assessee had offered Rs.7,41,750/- in the Return of Income filed u/sec.148 of the Act. Thus, in fact there was no addition in the assessment order passed u/sec.148 of the Act, as Vijay Bhagchand Bafna, Shirpur [A] assessee had already offered the difference of Rs.7,41,750/- in the Return of Income filed u/sec.148 of the Act. During the Assessment Proceedings, assessee filed a Valuation Report issued by Sub-Registrar dated 27.08.2018 showing value at Rs.37,44,900/- of the impugned property.

3.1 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ventura Textiles Ltd Vs. CIT [2020] 117 taxmann.com 182 (Bombay) has held as under : Quote“33. In Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra), Supreme Court examined meaning of the words 'particulars' and 'inaccurate'. As per Law Lexicon, the word 'particulars' means 'detail or details; the details of a claim or the separate items of an account'. Therefore, it was held that the word 'particulars' used in section 271(1)(c) of the Act would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. Referring to Webster's Dictionary where the word 'inaccurate' has Vijay Bhagchand Bafna, Shirpur [A] been defined as 'not accurate, not exact or correct; not according to truth; erroneous; as an inaccurate statement, copy or transcript', Supreme Court held that the two words i.e., 'inaccurate' and 'particulars' read in conjunction must mean that the details supplied in the return are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. It was held that mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Therefore, such claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Elaborating further, Supreme Court held that if such stand of the Revenue was accepted then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.