ORDER : AKIL KURESHI, J. Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27.04.2017 raising following question for our consideration: “Whether the ITAT is justified in law and in fact in deleting the penalty of Rs. 22,40,613/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the income of Rs. 67,89,737/- received by the assessee from the three trusts located in USA?” 2. The issue pertains to penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent-assessee had received certain income arising from three settlements in USA and two settlements in UK but had not offered the same to tax in the return for the assessment year 2004-05. The Assessing Officer disputed this position and in the order of assessment held that the income was chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee and also instituted penalty proceedings which resulted into imposition of such penalty. Before the Assessing Officer, the stand taken by the assessee was that at the time of filing of the return, there was no clarity on whether such income would be charged to the trust in the foreign country and if that be so, by virtue of double taxation avoidance agreement between the two countries, the same cannot be charged again in India. It was on this basis the assessee had not offered the income to tax in the return filed. 3. The Assessing Officer did not accept the stand of the assessee and therefore levied a penalty upon which, the assessee approached the Commissioner. The Commissioner reversed the order of the Assessing Officer accepting the assessee's defence that at the time of filing of the return, he would not be in a position to ascertain whether the three trusts situated in USA from where such distribution was affected, had paid tax on the income so distributed to him. He also noted that the assessee had made full disclosures by way of a note along with the return of income. In fact, this note was recorded by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment itself. He also noted that the assessee had made full disclosures by way of a note along with the return of income. In fact, this note was recorded by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment itself. The Commissioner while deleting the penalty relied on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158 in which it was observed that mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income. 4. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the view of the CIT (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Hence, the present appeal. The Tribunal also was of the view that the assessee had acted in a transparent manner and had raised a claim. It was based on bona fide impression. The Tribunal also found that the explanation of the assessee was reasonable. 5. It is undoubtedly true that the assessee raised certain claim not offering receipt to tax and such claim was eventually rejected by the Assessing Officer and upheld in further appeals. Nevertheless, the question of penalty would stand on an entirely different footing right from the beginning. The assessee had appended a note in the return not only disclosing the income but stating the reasons why the same had not been offered to tax. Merely because the reasons cited by the assessee for not offering the income to tax is found not sustainable in law, would not mean that the assessee had provided inaccurate particulars with respect to such income. In view of the concurrent findings of the CIT (Appeals) as well as Tribunal, we see no question of law arising. Tax appeal is dismissed. Learned counsel Mr. Desai, however, submitted that the accounting year of USA being different from that in India, the assessee was bound to have known that the income is not taxed in the hands of the trust. This was not the ground on which the Assessing Officer proceeded nor such a ground was pressed in service before the CIT(Appeals) or the Tribunal by the Revenue.