Skip to main content

Making of a Claim which is not Sustainable in Law would not render Penal Liability: ITAT

M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. vs JCIT(OSD),Circle-3(1), the assessee is a Cooperative Society and claimed exemption of Rs.1.45 crores under section 80P of the I.T. Act, 1961. During the assessment proceedings,  it was noticed that assessee had received interest of Rs.17,67,059 which is also claimed exempt. It was claimed by the assessee that interest of  Rs.11,92,784 was paid and therefore, net interest was only at Rs.5,74,275. Finally, after discussion, assessment was completed at net taxable income of Rs.5,74,275. However, the proceedings under section 263 were initiated and it was noticed that interest of Cooperative Society and claimed exemption of Rs.1.45 crores under section 80P of the I.T. Act, 1961. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that assessee had received interest of Rs.17,67,059 which Is also claimed exempt. It was claimed by the assessee that interest of Rs.11,92,784 was paid and therefore, net interest was only at Rs.5,74,275. Finally, after discussion, assessment was completed at net taxable income of Rs.5,74,275. However, the proceedings under section 263 were initiated and it was noticed that interest of Rs.11,92,784 could not have been deducted out of the interest recovered in terms of Section 14A of the I.T. Act. The assessee agreed for the addition. The A.O. accordingly made addition of RS.11,92,784 as the same was not allowable in terms of Section 14A of the I.T. Act. The A.O. vide separate order levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The assessee explained before Ld. CIT(A) that it is an estimated addition and assessee has not concealed the particulars of income. The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal of assessee.

The Appellate Tribunal finding in favour of the assesse held that the assessee declared the interest received which was claimed exempt as well as explained the interest paid. The Ld. CIT however, did not accept the contention of assessee. Therefore,  it is not the case of concealment of particulars of income. Ultimately,  it is a case where expenses have not been allowed. Therefore, mere making a claim which is not sustainable in Law, by itself would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or to conceal the particulars of income. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd.,322 ITR 158. It may also be noted here that assessee specifically.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more