Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in (2009) 13 SCC 448, considered the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Ors., reported in [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) and held that it goes without saying that for applicability of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, condition stated therein must exist. The above said decision came up for consideration in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt., Ltd., reported in [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC). On reading of Section 27(1)(c), the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that in order to bring the case under Section 271(1)(c), there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision could not be invoked. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that a mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. The reading of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, thus points out that for sustaining penalty, the bonafide explanation of the assessee must be looked at, so that the contumacious conduct of the assessee for the purpose of sustaining the penalty would be taken as condition that is the main requirement under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Referring to the decision in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors, (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that in the background of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there is no necessity of mens rea being shown by the Revenue, however referring to the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) penalty being a multiple liability, the bonafide of the conduct of the assessee necessarily assumes significant, even though willfulness of the assessee may not be a criteria, the conduct is to be considered. Thus, a mere fact that the addition in this case has been sustained by this Court by itself would not lead to the automatic application to Section 271(1), the Tribunal went into the explanation offered by the assessee as regards the charging of a higher amount in the case of J.B.Exports. Although, the Tribunal rejected the explanation for the purpose of assessment of goods, it considered it as a good ground for cancellation of penalty, when the explanation on the differential amount was given by the assessee that the entries were made in the account and the Accountant had not made the correct entry.