Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6.5 Coming to the decision in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the ratio of the case is that a claim in respect of which all facts have been disclosed will not lead to inference of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under Explanation-1 of section 271 (I)(c). In this case, the assessee has furnished all facts along with the 'return of income. In particular, the details filed by it include the profit & loss account, statement of income and the schedule of fixed assets. The schedule of fixed assets shows deduction of the assets. It has also been explained that the return was prepared by the then chartered accountant and, thus, the assessee was not properly advised by the chartered accountant. In view thereof, his services were dispensed with and a new- chartered accountant was engaged. We may now examine the explanation of the assessee in the light of the decision in the case of Zoom Communication (P) Lid. (supra). In that case, the assessee had not explained the circumstances in which patently wro ng claim of deduction was made. It was also not explained as to who had committed the mistake. In this case the person and the circumstances have been specified by the assessee. Further, the Tribunal had not recorded a finding on the plea of the bona fides of the explanation tendered by the assessee. This, according to us, is the crux of the matter as the bona-fides of the explanation have to be examined in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors (supra). W hen we look into the bona fides of the explanation, it is seen that the assessee cannot be expected to be well- versed in intricacies of the law. The loss was actually incurred. However, in view of the concept of block of assets, the loss could not have been claimed. Only the sale proceeds could have been deducted from the WDV of the block of assets. Obviously, the claim was patently wrong. But, the circumstances leading to such a wrong claim have been explained. All facts relating to the claim exist on record. No falsity has been found in the accounts in this regard. Therefore, we are of the view that the explanation tendered by the assessee is bona fide notwithstanding the fact that a wrong claim has been made. In such a situation, the claim can be said to be wrong only and not false. The mistake was rectified as soon as it was noticed by the assessee without any specific query from the AO. Thus, we are of the view that the assessee has discharged the onus cast on it under Explanation-1 and, therefore, it is not liable to be penalized u/s 271(1 )(c).

8. The Tribunal, after referring to judgment in Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC), has relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC).

9. Section 271(1)(c) and Explanation 1 thereto read as under:-

"271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals)] [or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person--

11. Mens rea is not a necessary attribute to impose penalty under Section under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty under the said section is imposed as a civil liability/obligation. The provision is both remedial and coercive in nature. It is far different and unlike any penalty for a crime or a fine or forfeiture imposed under the criminal and penal laws. Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act refers to blameworthy conduct for contravention of the Act and it equally applies to tax delinquency cases. In Dharmendra Textile Processors (supra), it was held that the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Anr. [2007] 8 Scale 304 (SC) (3) was wrongly decided as it did not consider the effect and relevance of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. The object behind enactment of Section 271(1)(c) along with Explanations was to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue and imposes a civil liability. Willful conduct etc. is not an essential ingredient.