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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more