9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - The mistake in making the investment within the prescribed time can be the basis for disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 54EC of the Act but cannot be the basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. - 458 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2010 - Adarsh Kumar Goel and Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ Denesh Goyal, Standing Counsel for the Appellant Adarsh Kumar Goel, J 1. This appeal has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the prescribed period of six months. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty. It was held that the assessee having made investment in bonds, though technically there was delay of few days after the prescribed period, claim for deduction could not be held to be concealment of income by the assessee. The assessee had dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in addition to the said claim being made in the computation of income filed along-with return of income, the assessee had enclosed the proof of the investments along-with the return of income. The said investment was made after a delay of few days as the person to whom the assessee had entrusted job was under the bonafide belief that the investment is to be made within six months from the end th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are in conformity with the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue." 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. In view of finding of fact concurrently recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that there was no concealment of income by the assessee, no substan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
