JUDGMENT 1. Revenue is before us aggrieved by the order dtd 5-3-2001 of the tribunal in the case on hand in CP No. 1282/1999. The assessing officer levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income on the cost of purchase of machinery amounting to Rs. 14,65,669.80. The penalty levied is Rs. 8,00,000/- for concealment. Aggrieved by the same. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax appeal. Commissioner agreed with the levy of penalty and confirmed the same. Assessee filed an appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal cancelled the penalty levied by the assessing officer on the ground of no concealment in terms of the Act. Revenue aggrieved by the same filed a Miscellaneous Petition to rectify the errors. The tribunal rejected the same. Thereafter assessee sought for a reference to this Court. After hearing, the tribunal has no chosen to refer the following questions of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the fact that the assessee withdrew its claim for depreciation, extra shift allowance and investment allowance etc., only after it was confronted with full evidence with regard to the fact that the impugned machinery had not even reached its premises before the close of the relevant accounting year and only after exhausting itself in proving genuineness of its claim, the tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the levy was not justified as the false claim was made on the strength of the certificate issued by the Factory Manager and there was nothing to show that the assessee included these machineries in its fixed assets? 2. Whether the tribunal was right in law in holding that making a false claim of depreciation, extra shift allowance, investment allowance etc., neither amounts to concealment of income, nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars to attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c)? 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 3. The assessing officer in his order dtd 21-12-1990 would notice the material facts. Thereafter it noticed that the assesses is a public limited company. There is statutory audit and also tax audit. According to the report of the auditors for the relevant year, the company had been maintaining proper records showing full particulars including quantitative details and situation of fixed assets. Thereafter it noticed that the assesses is a public limited company. There is statutory audit and also tax audit. According to the report of the auditors for the relevant year, the company had been maintaining proper records showing full particulars including quantitative details and situation of fixed assets. These fixed assets were physically verified by the management and no serious discrepancies were noticed on verification. The assessee consistently maintained that the machinery had arrived and put to use before 30-6-1984 whereas by 30-6-1984, the machinery was not even dispatched from the seller's factory premises. The assessee is not a small one time assessee who does not know the intricacies of the income tax Act. The Managing Director of the Company is aware that only if the machinery were put to use, the company is eligible for depreciation, investment allowance etc. The assessing officer also would notice that a certificate from the Factory Manager was filed before the assessing officer in the matter of depreciation. A letter from the assessee to M/S Lakshmi Machine Tools works would show that machinery was factually received on 13-7-1984. Assessee despite its letter has chosen to provide a letter from the factory manager that the machinery was installed before 30-6-1984. The assessing officer also would notice that written submissions were filed in which they have chosen to say that the assessing officer was wrong in disallowing the claim in the matter. The assessing officer also would notice the reply submitted by the assessee. After noticing all these aspects of the matter he has come to a conclusion that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter he has imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/-. When this order was challenged before the appellate authority, the appellate authority has confirmed the penalty. Thereafter when the matter was taken up before the tribunal, the tribunal has chosen to cancel the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the order the tribunal would say that the assesses offered an explanation that the claim was made on the basis of a certificate issued by the factory manager. When the assessee came to know of the mistake it withdrew the claim. The point is whether the mistake can be attributed to the assessee by invoking Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. When the assessee came to know of the mistake it withdrew the claim. The point is whether the mistake can be attributed to the assessee by invoking Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The tribunal has also chosen to rely on a judgment reported in 51 ITD 467. Thereafter a Miscellaneous Petition was filed stating that the assessee made the claim by way of its return of income which was filed on 30-7-1985. The certificate of the factory manager was issued more than two years later i.e., on 24-10-1987. The revenue wanted the Matter to be reconsidered. The tribunal has rejected by saying that no review power is available to the tribunal. 4. From the material on record what is clear to us is that the assesses has chosen to claim the benefit with regard to machinery on the ground of putting the machinery to use before 30-6-1984, whereas the machinery was not even dispatched from the seller's factory premises. It was received only on 13-7-1984. Thereafter a false information was provided by the assessee. The so-called factory manager certificate is only after two years in the case on hand. The assessing authority after noticing the conduct has given a detailed finding with regard to the matter in his order. He has also commented upon the certificate issued by the auditor. According to him, Section 271(1)(c) is attracted in the light of the material available on record. We are of the view that the assessing officer cannot said to have committed any error particularly in the light of the false information for the purpose of benefits in terms of the Act. The same was challenged before the appellate authority. The appellate authority has chosen to dismiss the same thereby confirming the findings of the assessing officer. Surprisingly, when the matter was taken to the tribunal, the tribunal has failed to look into the matter for the purpose of false information in terms of Section 271(1)(c) in its order. On the other hand, the tribunal condones the conduct by holding that the claim was made on the basis of the certificate issued by the Factory Manager. The tribunal forgot to notice that when the claim was made on the basis of installation, the machinery had not even left the premises of the seller. The defence of Factory Manager's certificate can never be considered. The tribunal forgot to notice that when the claim was made on the basis of installation, the machinery had not even left the premises of the seller. The defence of Factory Manager's certificate can never be considered. Even otherwise, it cannot be said that the certificate of Factory Manager would come to the aid of the assesses in a matter like this. In fact the tribunal has chosen to rely on its decision rendered in 51 ITD 467. In the said order, the tribunal would say that no fault could, therefore, be found with an assessee who, bonafide, relied on his tax counsel-cum-agent in the matter of preparation of his income tax and wealth tax returns including the work of computation of income/loss/net wealth for the said purpose. If the legal counsel/agent committed a blunder in the exercises of his duty, not in a mala fide manner, not again in collusion with the assessee, the assessee should not be visited with penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore the assessee could not be considered to be guilty of any of the offence as envisaged under Section 271(1)(c). We are not in agreement with the view expressed by the tribunal in this case. Any omission and commission on the part of the counsel/agent is certainly binding on the assessee. In the case on hand it is not the counsel/agent but it is the Factory Manager, who has issued the certificate. The assessee is bound by the act of his servants/ Factory Manager as well. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the tribunal has committed a serious legal error in the case on hand. 5. At this stage, we must refer to a judgment of this Court in 1969 (2) Mys L J. 469, wherein this Court was considering with regard to sufficient cause in the light of wrong advice by legal adviser. The court ruled as under; The mere fact that a party or litigant relied on the opinion of his lawyer or legal adviser, cannot in itself be regarded as sufficient cause for purposes of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Such conduct on the part of the litigant can be regarded as amounting to sufficient cause only if the opinion or advice of his lawyer on which he acted had been arrived at by the lawyer after exercise of due deligence. 6. Such conduct on the part of the litigant can be regarded as amounting to sufficient cause only if the opinion or advice of his lawyer on which he acted had been arrived at by the lawyer after exercise of due deligence. 6. This judgment would go to show that the commission/omission of a representative is binding on the principal. No shelter can be taken on the ground of wrong advice by legal counsel. The principle in that case would support the revenue. 7. A Bench of this Court in STRP 68/2005 has chosen to consider the issue of penalty and the defence of the assesses with regard to the omission at the instance of the representative. This Court has ruled in para 11 reading as under; 11. In the case on hand, it is admitted that bogus document is filed and it is created for the purpose of getting exemption. Only defence of the assessee is that it is at the instance of his representative. It cannot be forgotten that the assessee is bound by what his representative acts on his behalf in the matter. We are not prepared to believe the plea of the assessee that he is totally unaware of the creation of bogus document by his previous STP as sought to be argued before us. Assessee is fairly a big dealer having turnover of more than one crore. He is not a small trader. He is presumed to know his dealings. Hence, it is not possible for this Court to accept the plea of ignorance as sought to be pleaded before us. No acceptable materials are placed on record with regard to ignorance plea. It is also to be seen that the assessee has not chosen to take any action against his representative for the purpose of bogus documents and his inaction also would show that all is not well in the assessment proceedings. Therefore, we are of the view that the tribunal is right in holding that the assessee has to suffer penalty on the facts of this case. 8. The said finding is equally applicable to the case on hand. The facts of this case would show the conduct of the assessee, and in the light of the conduct of the assessee, we have no hesitation in reversing the order of the tribunal and thereby restoring the order of the assessing authority. 8. The said finding is equally applicable to the case on hand. The facts of this case would show the conduct of the assessee, and in the light of the conduct of the assessee, we have no hesitation in reversing the order of the tribunal and thereby restoring the order of the assessing authority. We cannot forget that the State depends upon the revenue out of the tax collected by the department. Tax exemption, tax concession, tax deduction has to be for bonafide reason and not for those who make false declaration for the purpose of benefit in terms of the statute. Section 271(1)(c) has to be strictly applied in the larger interest of discipline in filing correct returns by the assessee. 9. In these circumstances, this appeal is accepted. Questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue. 10. No costs.