9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1961. 2. That the penalty under section 271(1)(c) has been confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the appellant has not been considered properly. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also not considered the fact that deduction under section 54F was claimed on the basis of computation worked out by the assessee's counsel and the assessee cannot be penalised for the mistake of the counsel, especially when full particulars of the income/capital gain were given in the return and nothing was concealed." The only issue raised in the present appeal is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty proceedings the explanation of the assessee was that he was not aware of the income-tax law and had acted on the advice of his counsel in claiming the said deduction under section 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejecting the explanation of the assessee levied penalty of Rs. 61,614 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee is in appeal against the aforesaid levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned authorised representative for the assessee reiterated its submissions made before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and pointed out that the complete particulars in respect of it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use for Rs. 10,25,000 and in view of the exemption provided under section 54F of the Act claimed the exemption to the extent of Rs. 9,75,020, i.e., the long-term capital gain computed in the case and declared the income under the said head at nil. However, exemption under section 54F of the Act is in relation to the cost of net consideration realised on sale of old asset and since the cost of new asset being the residential house was lesser than the same, the assessee was entitled to pro rata deduction totalling Rs. 7,99,516. Consequently, the addition of Rs.1,75,484 in the present case was made by the Assessing Officer. The claim of the assessee is that it had bona fidely acted on the advice of his counsel and made the aforesaid invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
