9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 858 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of deduction under section 80IB(10) - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - Held that - It may be a fact that assessee has accepted the disallowance under section 80(IB)(10) by not preferring any appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) but that cannot be a reason alone for concluding that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. When there are enough material on record to show that the issue on which assessee s claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) was disallowed are highly debatable issues on which more than one view is possible, the assessee s claim of deduction in the return of income has to be considered to be under bona fide belief that he is eligible for such deduction. As far as the specific allegation of the learned Departmental Representative that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by mentioning the are of plot to be more than one acre, it needs to be observed that on reference to the same Annexure A of the audit report, it would be relevant to note that the assessee has also mentioned the area of plot as 3207.20 sq.mtr. which measure to less than one acre. Thus, it appears that the statement of the assessee that plot of area is more than one acre as referred to by the learned Departmental Representative, a bonafide mistake and cannot be termed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Alleged non-fulfillment of conditions for deduction under section 80IB(10). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the assessment year 2007-08. The AO had imposed the penalty on the grounds that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming a deduction under section 80IB(10) despite not fulfilling the specified conditions. 2. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80IB(10): The AO disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for a housing project, citing non-fulfillment of several conditions: - The project was approved on 12th November 1999 and should have been completed by 31st March 2008. - The area of the plot was less than one acre. - No notification from the Board regarding the scheme. - 24 out of 48 residential units exceeded the built-up area of 1,000 sq.ft. - The commercial establishment area exceeded 2,000 sq.ft. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the AO's decision, confirming that the plot of land was less than one acre and the CBDT had not identified the project. The assessee did not challenge this decision further, making the disallowance final for the assessment year. 3. Alleged Non-fulfillment of Conditions for Deduction under Section 80IB(10): The assessee argued before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the conditions for the deduction were met, citing a CBDT notification (No.1 of 2011 dated 5th January 2011) which deemed slum redevelopment projects approved by the Maharashtra Government as eligible for section 80IB(10) from the assessment year 2005-06 onwards. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the notification exempted slum rehabilitation schemes from the one-acre plot condition and noted that the completion condition was inserted w.e.f. 1st April 2005, whereas the project was approved earlier. The Commissioner (Appeals) also noted that the assessee could not control the issuance of the CBDT notification and claimed the deduction under a bona fide impression. The decision referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., which held that mere disallowance of a claim does not result in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Commissioner (Appeals) further cited the case of CIT v/s Brahma Associates, which held that the condition of commercial area exceeding 2,000 sq.ft. does not apply to projects commenced before 1st April 2005. The assessee's claim on a pro-rata basis for units meeting the 1,000 sq.ft. condition was also accepted. The Departmental Representative argued that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars by not providing complete information in the audit report and claimed the plot area as more than one acre. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee also mentioned the plot area as 3207.20 sq.mtr. (less than one acre), indicating a bona fide mistake rather than deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to delete the penalty, concluding that the issues were debatable and the assessee's claim was made under a bona fide belief. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06.11.2015.
|
