Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Mahila Urban Co.-Op.bank Ltd, Ashwini Bazar, Udaipur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 103 / 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur Versus ----Appellant Udaipur Mahila Urban Co.-Op.Bank Ltd, Ashwini Bazar, Udaipur. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ Counsel For Appellant(s) : Mr. KK Bissa Counsel For Respondent(s) : -- _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. MOOLCHANDANIJudgment 02/01/2017 This appeal is preferred to question correctness of thejudgment dated 14.2.2013 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur affirming the order passed bythe learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated22.5.2012 arriving at the conclusion that the respondent-assesseewas erroneously subjected to penalty as per provisions of Section271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that theassessee, a Co-operative Bank, for the assessment year 2008-09 declared taxable income of Rs.2,74,660/-. While doing so, theassessee claimed deduction as per provisions of Section 80P (2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for a sum of Rs.76,16,622/-. Arevised return was subsequently filed on 30.11.2009 declaring asum of Rs.78,91,280/- as taxable income. While submittingrevised return, the assessee withdrew deduction claimed as perSection 80P (2)(d) of the Act of 1961. The Assessing Officertreated the same as concealment of a particular income andfurther submission of inaccurate particulars of income, thus,imposed a penalty. To challenge the same, an appeal was preferred before theCommission of Income Tax (Appeals), that came to be allowedunder an order dated 22.5.2012. The Commissioner of IncomeTax while accepting the appeal arrived at the conclusion that inlight of the judgment of Hon`ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs.Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., merely because the assesseeclaimed deduction of interest incurred has not been accepted bythe revenue and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could havenot been attracted. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal affirmedthe finding aforesaid by relying upon the judgment of Hon`bleSupreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt.Ltd. (supra). The argument before us that in the case in hand theassessee was knowing it well that the deduction as per provisionsof Section 80P (2)(d) of the Act of 1961 were not applicable but submitted an inaccurate return and, as such, the Assessing Officerrightly invoked powers under Section 271 (1)(c) of the At of 1961. On examination of facts of the case and also in light of thelaw laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. ReliancePetro Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any force with theargument advanced. True it is, that at the first instance the asessee claimed adeduction but immediately thereafter a revised return was filedwithdrawing the deduction claimed. Pertinent to notice that whilesubmitting the original return as well as revised return no changein facts was at all made. The change was only with regard toentitlement of deduction and that too was corrected by theassessee at its own. Looking to this factual background, we do not find any wrongwith the judgment impugned. The appeal, as such, is having nomerit hence dismissed. (G.R. MOOLCHANDANI)J. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Sanjay