| COURT: | ITAT Delhi |
| CORAM: | Diva Singh (JM), Sudhakar Reddy (AM) |
| SECTION(S): | 271(1)(c) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, penalty, wrong claim vs. false claim |
| COUNSEL: | R. S. Singhavi |
| DATE: | September 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | November 14, 2014 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2007-08 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 271(1)(c): No penalty can be levied for a bona fide "wrong" claim which is not a "false" claim | |
The addition by way of disallowing the depreciation claimed has rightly been made in the quantum proceedings which fact has been accepted by the assessee by filing a revised return and not agitating the issue further. Considering the explanation offered by the assessee in the penalty proceedings, it is seen that repeatedly it is claimed that the return was finalized on the basis of figures appearing in the Sale Deed. This fact has not been disputed by the department and is found to be supported from the assessment order itself. In the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances, considering the fact that even after the said addition the assessee was allowed business loss to be carried forward to the extent of Rs.2.96 crore odd, we have no hesitation in following the judicial precedent relied upon to hold that the explanation offered is bonafide and deserves to be allowed. It is seen that at best the claim of the assessee can be called a wrong claim and by no stretch of imagination on the facts as they stand can it be called a false claim. We have taken into consideration the order of the coordinate bench relied upon in the case of Vasudev Pahwa vs. ACIT (cites supra) and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Limited (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) which was subsequently followed by the Apex Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 25 Taxmann.com 400 (SC).
Ld. Denning MR said in 1974 case CLJ 233… ‘ The way to get things right is to hold thus: ‘No court or Tribunal has any jurisdiction to make errors of law on which the decision of a case depends. If it makes such an error of law on which decision depends, it goes outside its jurisdiction and Certiorari will lie to correct it.
India follows British legal system so indian courts need to follow per se.
Bonafide errors are common in great confused indian taxation system as it is a maze of confusion fully assisted by great finance ministers, why i doubt whether very finance minister really understands like the great revenue officials as they suffer from some kind of superiority over tax payers as if they are some emperor’s servants but modern emperors even respect their subjects as citizens.
Errors caused by advisers in so called taxation accountants as most tax payers rely on these worthy accountants, and so the tax payer commits error just because his advisers made, so the errors are not invariably not deliberate.
AOs illegal bad in law notices many a time puts the tax payers in quandary.
That way my suggestion is revenue do not unnecessarily load the judiciary with their bad in law notices first of all; the so called chief commissioners of income tax must and should look into the things what the AOs do that way these public civil servants are expected to function under Art 51A duties and obligations in Part IVA of the constitution of India, after all citizens do have read fundamental rights in Art 19(1)(a) and 21
Bonafide errors are common in great confused indian taxation system as it is a maze of confusion fully assisted by great finance ministers, why i doubt whether very finance minister really understands like the great revenue officials as they suffer from some kind of superiority over tax payers as if they are some emperor’s servants but modern emperors even respect their subjects as citizens.
Errors caused by advisers in so called taxation accountants as most tax payers rely on these worthy accountants, and so the tax payer commits error just because his advisers made, so the errors are not invariably not deliberate.
AOs illegal bad in law notices many a time puts the tax payers in quandary.
That way my suggestion is revenue do not unnecessarily load the judiciary with their bad in law notices first of all; the so called chief commissioners of income tax must and should look into the things what the AOs do that way these public civil servants are expected to function under Art 51A duties and obligations in Part IVA of the constitution of India, after all citizens do have read fundamental rights in Art 19(1)(a) and 21 but ordinary tax payer already pay through his nose how he would engage good real good advocates as it is a very costly adventure for the poor middle class tax payers.1
companies can afford good advocacy as advocacy costs gone over roofs