C. I. T., AHMEDABADversusRELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD.

                               [2010] 3 S.C.R. 510


A                              C.l·.T., AHMEDABAD
                                          v.
            RELIANCE PETROPRODUC~S PVT. LTD.
                (Civil Appeal No. 2463 of 2010)
                                MARCH 17, 2010
8
          [V.S. SIRPURKAR ANO DR. MUKUNDAKAM
                       SHARMA, JJ.]

        INCOME TAX ACT, 1961:
c
         s. 271 (1 )(c) - Penalty on concealment of income or
   furnishing 'inaccurate particulars' - Assessee claiming in the
   return a certain sum as expenditure, on :the basis of
   expenditure made for paying the interest on the loan for
0 purchase of IPL shares - Claim not accepted - Show cause
   notice u/s 271(1)(c) issued to assessee....:. HELD: There is no
   finding that any details supplied by assessee were found to
   be incorrect or erroneous or false - A mere making of the
   claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount
E ·to furnishing inaccurate particulars - Penalty uls 271(1)(c), is,
   therefore, not attracted.

        WORDS\AND PHRASES:
                       I   I


        Expression 'inaccurate particulars' as occurring in ·
F   s.271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 "'."" Connotation of.

        The assessee, ·an investment company, in its return .
   showed Rs.28,77,242 as expenditure which it claimed on
   the basis of the expenditure made for paying the interest
   on· the loans obtained by it by which amount the
G assessee purchased some IPL shares. The assesee
   declared a loss of Rs.26,54,554/-. The claim of the
   assessee was not accepted. Penalty proceedings u/s
  ·211(1)(c) of the Act were initiated against the assessee.

H                                     510
                                                                  '

          C.l.T., AHMEDABAD v. RELIANCE                511
            PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD.
The assessee in its reply to the show cause notice stated A
that all the details given in the return were correct, there
was no concealment of income nor were any inaccurate
particulars of such income furnished. The Commissioner
(Appeals) deleted the penalty and his order was upheld
by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as also the High .B
Court.
     In the instant appeal filed by the Revenue, th~ .: · : ..
question for consideration before the Court was: whether· ·
the. assessee was liab.le to pay the penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c). C
of the Income Tax Act, 1961? .

     Dismissing the appeal, the Court.

      . HELD: 1.1. In order to attract the provisions of s.271
  of .the .Income Tax Act, 1961, firstly, there has to· be p
  concealment of the particulars of. the income of the
 assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished
· inaccurate particulars of his income.Before the penalty·
  u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed, it must be shown that
  the conditions under the said section exist. There .can be E.
  no dispute that everything would depend upon the return
  filed because that is the only document, where the
 assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When
 such particulars are found to· be inaccurate, the liability'·
 would arise. The instant case is not the one of
 concealment of the income. That is not the case of the F
 Revenue either. The stand of the Revenue is that by · ·
 making incorrect claim for the expenditure on interest, ·
 the assessee tias furnished inaccurate particulars of the· .
 income. {Para 7 ar:id 8) [516-G-H; 517-A-C; 518-A-B]

    Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Mumbai & Anr. 2007 (7) SCR 499 =2007{6) SCC 329,
explained.                                                ·

    1.2. Reading the words 'inaccurate' and 'particulars'     H
    512    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the
  return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not
  according to truth or are erroneous. In the instant case,
  there is no finding that any details supplied by the
  assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or
B erroneous or false. Therefore, there would be no
  question of inviting the penalty uls 271(1)(c) of the Act.
  A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in
  law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate
  particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such
c claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate
  particulars. [Para 9] [520-A-C]

       1.3. It cannot be said that "submitting an incorrect
  claim in law for the expenditure on interest would amount
  to giving inaccurate particulars of such income". The
D words are plain and simple. In order to expose the
  assessee to the penalty. unless the case is strictly
  covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot
  be ir1voked. By any stretch of imagination, making an
  incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing
E inaccurate particulars. [Para 7] [517-C-D]

         Commissioner·of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Atul Mohan
    Bindal 2009 (13) SCR 464 = 2009(9) SCC 589; Union of
    India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors 2008 (14) SCR 13
F   = 2008 (13) SCC 369; and Union of India Vs.Rajasthan Spg.
    & Wvg. Mills 2009(13) sec 448, relied on.
       2. It was up to the authorities to accept the claim in
  the return or not. Merely because the assessee had
  claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted
G or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself
  would not attract the penalty uls 271(1)(c); otherwise, in
  case of every return where the claim made is not
  accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, the
  assessee will invite penalty uls 271(1)(c). That is clearly
H
           C.l.T., AHMEDABAD v. RELIANCE                   513
             PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD.
not the intendment of the Legislature. In the instant case,       A
no fault has been found with the particulars submitted by
the assessee in its return. The Tribunal, as well as, the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the High
Court have correctly reached their conclusion. [Para 10
and 12] [520-G-H; 521-A-F-G]                                      B
    Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
(2009) 23VST 249 (SC), referred to.
                      Case Law Reference:
     2009 (13) SCR 464        relied on             para 7        c
     2008 (14) SCR 13         relied on             para 7
     2009(13) sec 448         relied on             para 7
     2007 (7) SCR 499         explained             para 8        D
     (2009) 23VST 249 (SC) referred to              Para 11
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2463 of 2010.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 23.10.2007 of the High        E
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Tax Appeal No. 1149 of
2007.
     B. Bhattacharya, ASG, Arijit Prasad, Varun Sarin (for B.V.
Balaram Das) for the Appellant.
                                                                  F
      Santosh Agarwal, R. Chandrachud (for K.R. Sasiprabhu)
for the Respondents.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
    V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.                          G
     2. The only question in this appeal which has been filed
by the Commissioner of Income Tax-Ill is as to .whether the
respondent-assessee is liable to pay the penalty amounting to
Rs.11,37,949/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") ordered by the Assessing   H
    514     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A Authority. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals},
   however, deleted the said penalty. The order of the
 . Commissioner (Appeals) was appealed against before the
   Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to "the
   Tribunal") which confirmed the order of the Commissioner
B (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
   However, the Revenue challenged the said order before the
   High Court which confirmed the orders passed by the
   Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal while dismissing the
   Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue.
C     ·. 3. Few facts would be relevant.
       4. The assessee is a company and the relevant
  Assessment Year·is 2001-02. The Return was filed on
  31.1.2001 declaring loss of Rs.26,54,554/-. This assessment
0 was finalized under Section 143(3) of the Act on 25.11.2003
  wh~reby the total income was determined at Rs.2,22,688/~. In
  this assessment the addition in respect of interest expenditure
  was made .. Simultaneously penalty proceedings under Section
  271 (1 )(c) of the Act were also initiated on account of
E concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of
  income. The said expenditure was claimed by the assessee
  on the basis of expenditure made for paying the interest on the.
  loans incurred by it by which amount the assessee purchased
  some IPL shares by way of its business policies. However,
  admittedly, the assessee did not earn any income by way of
F dividend from those shares. The C~!l'lpany in its Return claimed
  disallowance of the amount of expenditure for Rs.28,77,242/-
  under Section 14A of the Act.
       5. By way of response to the Show Cause Notice
G regarding the penalty in its reply dated 22.3.2006, the assessee
  claimed that all the details given in the Return were correct,
  there was no concealment of income, nor were any inaccurate
  particulars of such income furnished. It was pointed out that
  the disallowance made by the Assessing Authority in the
H Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act were solely
    .   '..




        C.l.T., AHMEDABAD v. RELIANCE          515
  PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
 on account of different views taken on the same set. of facts A
 and, therefore, they could, at the most, be termed as difference
 of opinion but nothing to do with the concealment of income or
 furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. It was ·
 claimed that mere disallowance of the claim in the assessment
 proceedings could not be the sole basis for levying penalty B
 under Section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. It was submitted specific;ally
 that it was an investment company and in its own case for
 Assessment Year 2000-01 the Commissioner (Appeals) had
 deleted the disallowance of interest made by the Assessment
 Officer and the Tribunal has also confirmed the stand of the         c
 Commissioner (Appeals) for that year and, therefore, it was on.
 the basis of this that the expenditure was claimed. It was further
 submitted that making a claim which is rejected would not make
 the assessee company .liable under Section 271(1)(c) of the
 Act. It was again reiterated that there was absolutely no
                                                                      0
 concealment, nor were any inaccurate particular ever submitted .
·by the assessee-company.                 ·

    . 6. Shri Bhattacharya, Learned ASG submits that
  Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal as well as the High Court
  have ignored the positive language ofSection 271(1)(c) of the       E
  Act. He pointed out that the claim of the interest expenditure
  was totally without legal basis and was made with the malafide
  intentions. It was further pointed out that the claim made for
  the interest expenditure was not accepted by the Assessing
  Authority nor by the Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, it      F
  was obvious that the claim for the interest expenditure did not
  have any basis;" He further pointed out that the contention about
  the earlier claims being finalized was also not correct as the
. appeal was pending before the High Court against the order
  of the Tribunal for the year 2000-01. According to the Learned      G
  ASG, even otherwise, the expenditure on interest could not have
  been claimed in law, as under Section 36(1 )(iii), only the
  amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the
  purposes of the business or profession could have been
 claimed and it was clear that the interest in the present case       H
    516     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R .


A was not in respect of the capital borrowed. Our attention was
  also invited to Section 14A of the Act, which provides that no
  deduction could be allowed in respect of the expenditure
  incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not
  form part of the total income under this Act. The Learned ASG
B also invited our attention to provision of Section 10(33) to show
  that the income arising from the transfer of a capital asset could
  not be reckoned as an income which can form the part of the
  total income. In short, the contention was that the assessee in
  this case had made a claim which was totally unacceptable in
C law and thereby had invited the provisions of Section 271(1)(c)
  of the Act and had, therefore, exposed itself to the penalty under
  that provision.

       7. As against this, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf
  of the respondent pointed out that the language of Section
D 271(1)(c) had to be strictly construed, this being a taxing statute
  and more particularly the one providing for penalty. It was
  pointed out that unless the wording directly covered the
  assessee and the fact situation herein, there could not be any
  penalty under the Act. It was pointed out that there was no
E concealment or any inaccurate particulars regarding the income
  were submitted in the Return. Section 271(1)(c) is as under:-

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

                (c)   has concealed the particulars of his income
                      or furnished inaccurate particulars of such
                      income."
G
       A glance at this provision would suggest that in order to
  be covered, 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. Present
H is not the case of concealment of the income. That is not the
       C.l.T., AHMEDABAD v. RELIANCE         517
 PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
case of the Revenue either. However, the Learned Counsel              A
for Revenue suggested that by making incorrect claim for the
expenditure on interest, the assessee has furnished inaccurate
particulars of the income. As per Law Lexicon, the meaning
of the word "particular" is a detail or details (in plural sense);
the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account.          B
Therefore, the word "particulars" used in the Section 271 (1 )(c)
 would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made.
 It is an admitted position in the present case that no information
 given in the Return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It
 is not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found     c
to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the
 assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate
 particulars. The Learned Counsel argued that "submitting an
 incorrect claim in law for the expenditure on interest would
amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income". We           D .
do not think that such can be the interpretation of the concerned
words. The words are plain and simple. In order to expose
the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered
by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By
any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law          E
cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Atul Mohan Bindal
(2009(9) SCC 589], where this Court was considering the same
provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has
to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of
his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.        F
This Court ·referred to another decision of this Court in Union
of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008(13) SCC
369], as also, the decision in Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spg.
& Wvg. Mills [2009(13) SCC 448] and reiterated in para 13
fu~-                                                                  G
       "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of
            Section 271 (1 )(c), conditions stated therein must
            exist."
                                                                      H
    518     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A         8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the
    conditions under Section 271 (1 )(<;:) must exist before,the
    penalty is imposed. -There can be no dispute that everything
    would depend upon the Return filed because that is the only
    document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of
B   his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate,
    the liability would arise. In Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint
     Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. [2007(6) SCC
    329], this Court explained the terms "concealment of income"
    and "furnishing inaccurate particulars". The Court went on to·
c   hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under Section
    271(1)(c), mens rea was necessary, as according to the Court,
    the word "inaccurate" signified a deliberate act or omission on
    behalf of the assessee. It went on to hold that Clause (iii) of
    Section 271(1) provided for a discretionary jurisdiction upon the
    Assessing Authority, inasmuch as the amount of penalty could ·
0
    not be less than the amount of tax sought to be evaded by
    reason of such concealment of particulars of income, but it may
    not exceed three times thereof. It was pointed out that the term
    "inaccurate particulars" was not defined anywhere in the Act
E   and, therefore, it was held that furnishing of an assessment of
    the value of the property may not by itself be furnishing
    inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the a.ssessee
    must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is
    not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and
    material to the computation of his income were not disclosed
F   by him. It was then held that the explanation must be preceded
    by a finding as to how and in what manner, the as!?essee had
    furnished the particulars of his income. The Court ultimately went
    on to hold that the element of mens rea was essential. It was
    only on the point of mens rea that the judgment in Dilip N. Shroff
G   vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. was
    upset. In Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors
    (cited supra), after quoting from Section 271 extensively and
    also considering Section 271(1)(c), the Court came to the
    conclusion that since Section 271(1)(c) indicated the element
H   of strict liability on the assessee for the concealment or for
         C.l.T., AHMEDABAD v. RELIANCE          519
   PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
    giving inaccurate particulars while filing Return, there was no A
    necessity of mens rea. The Court went on to hold that the
    objective behind enactment of Section 271 (1 )(c) read with
    Explanations indicated with the said Section was for providing
    remedy for loss of revenue and such a penalty was a civil
    liability and, therefore, willful concealment is not an essential B
    ingredient for attracting civil liability as was the case in the
· . matter of prosecution under Section 276-C of the Act. The
    basic reason why decision in Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint
     Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra)
    was overruled by this Court in Union of India vs. Dharamendra     c
    Textile Processors {cited supra), was that according to this
    Court the effect and difference between Section 271 (1 )(c) and
    Section 276-C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N.
    Shroff vs. Joint Commissioner of lnc;ome Tax, Mumbai & Anr.
    (cited supra). However, it must be pointed out that in Union of
                                                                      0
    India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (cited supra), no
    fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N.
    Shroff vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr.
    (cited supra), where the Court explained the meaning of the
    terms "conceal" and inaccurate". It was only the ultimate
    inference in Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint Commissioner of Income E
    Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra) to the effect that mens rea
    was an essential ingredient for the penalty under Section
    271 (1 )(c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint
    Commissioner of Income. Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra)
   was overruled.                                                     F

       9. We are not concerned in the present case with the mens
  rea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this case,
  as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate
  particulars. In Webster's Dictionary, the word "inaccurate" has     G
  been defined as:-

      "not accurate, not exact or correct; not according .to truth;
      erroneous; as an inaccurate statement, copy or transcript".

       We have already seen the meaning of the word                   H
    520      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 3 S.C.R.

A "particulars" in the earlier part of this judgment. Reading the
  words in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in
  the Return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not
  according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add here
  that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied
B by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or
  erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be
  no question of inviting the penalty under Section 271 (1 )(c) of
  the Act. A mere making of the claim; which is not sustainable
  in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate
C particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim
  made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars.

          10. It was tried to be suggested that Section 14A of the
    Act specifically excluded the deductions in respect of the
    expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income
D   which does not form part of the total income under the Act. It
    was further pointed out that the dividends from the shares did
    not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated
    before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached the
    conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive
E   deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to
    concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the
    falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms; (i) an
    item of receipt may be suppressed fraudulently; (ii) an item of
    expenditure may be falsely (or in an exaggerated amount)
F   claimed, and both types attempt to reduce the taxable income
    and, therefore, both types amount to concealment of particulars
    of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars
    of income. We do not agree, as the assessee had furnished
    all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return,
G   which details, in themselves, were not found tc? be inaccurate
    nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part.
    It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or
    not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the
    expenditure, which claim ~11as not accepted or was not
H   acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our
       C.l.T., AHMEDABAD v. RELIANCE           521
 PETROPRODUCTS PVT. Ll'D. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
opinion, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). If we           A
accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every
Return where the claim made· is not accepted by Assessing
Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under
Section 271 (1 )(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the
Legislature.                                                          B

     11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in
Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. [(2009)
23VST 249 (SC)] as regards the penalty are apposite. In the
aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty                C
proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the Court
had found that the authorities below had found that there were
so.me incorrect statements made in the Return. However, the
said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the
assessee. This Court, therefore, observed:
                                                                      D
      "So far as the question of penalty is concerned the items
      which were not included in the turnover were found
      incorporated in the appellant's account books. Where
      certain items which are not included in the turnover are
      disclosed in the dealer's own account books and the             E
      assessing authorities include these items in the dealer's
      turnover disallowing the exemption, penalty cannot be
      imposed. The penalty levied stands set aside."

      The situation in the present case is still better as no fault   F
has been found with the particulars submitted by the assessee
in its Return.

     12. The Tribunal, as well as, the Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals) and the High Court have correctly reached this
conclusion and, therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue has        G
no merits and is dismissed.

RP.                                          Appeal dismissed.