- (1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are satisfied that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260 -A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'] against the order dated 17.12.2012 passed in ITA No.387/JU/2011 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ['the ITAT'] for the assessment year 2007 -08.
(2.) THE sum and substance of the matter could be noticed in the following: The assessee is a co -operative society, engaged in the business of banking and providing credit facilities to its members and public in general. The assessee had earlier been claiming, and was being allowed, deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act for being eligible therefor. The assessee also claimed the similar deduction for the assessment year 2007 -08, which has not been allowed by the Assessing Officer ['the AO'] due to change in law, whereby the assessee was rendered ineligible for this deduction. It appears that the assessee filed its original return for the assessment year 2007 -08 on 30.10.2007, declaring total income at Rs.3,90,26,699/ - while claiming deduction of Rs.50,000/ - under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii). Subsequently, a revised return was filed by the assessee on 13.12.2007, declaring income of Rs.82,88,771/ -. In this revised return, in addition to the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii) amounting to Rs.50,000/ -, the assessee also claimed further deduction of Rs.3,07,37,988/ - under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. However, on being informed by the AO after scrutiny about amendment of Section 80P, the assessee filed re - revised return on 29.12.2009, seeking to withdraw the claim of above deduction. The AO found the re -revised return not a valid one; and completed the assessment on total income of Rs.3,90,76,700/ -, disallowing both the claims of deduction under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii)) and 80P(2)(d) made in the first revised return. During the assessment proceedings, penalty notice was also issued with reference to such claims of deduction, requiring the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should not be imposed on it for alleged concealment of particulars of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
(3.) THE assessee submitted that in essence, it was a technical error, which occurred due to amendment of the provisions of Section 80P of the Act; and the mistake was sought to be rectified in the re -revised return. The assessee also submitted that the penalty could be levied under Section 271(1)(c) only in a case of deliberate concealment of particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which had not been the case here. The AO, however, rejected the contentions of the assessee and held that the assessee had intentionally claimed inadmissible deductions under Section 80P(2) to reduce the taxable income; and proceeded to impose the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.93,70,460/ -.;