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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

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