9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO for any reason. We, therefore decide the issue in question in favour of the appellant/assessee - ITA No. 6935/MUM/2013 - - - Dated:- 12-1-2016 - B. R. Baskaran (Accountant Member) And Ram Lal Negi (Judicial Member) For the Appellant : R. C. Jain For the Respondent : Chandip Singh ORDER Ram Lal Negi (Judicial Member) This appeal has been preferred against order dt. 02/09/2013 passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals)-37 Mumbai u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( in short the Act ) pertaining to the Asst. Year 2009-10. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee being a partner in M/s Basera Construction and M/s Rawassa Construction filed its return for the A.Y. 2009-10 declaring the total income of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) after hearing the appellant upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal against the impugned order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) has error in confirming the order passed by the AO declaring him the assessee in default u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and confirming the penalty of ₹ 1,38,571,/- imposed by the AO. 4. Before us the Ld. AR reiterated its submission made before the authorities below and relying upon the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd.(2010) 322 ITR 0158 submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le in law does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court following the verdict of Hon ble Supreme Court has decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee in CIT vs. Nalin P. Shah (HUF) ITA (LOD) NO 51 of 2013. 8. In the present case, the assessee has claimed depreciation/deduction in question and the same became unsustainable in law. In view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court aforesaid the act of the assessee does not attract section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has made the claims under the bona fide belief that he is entitled for the same as he had also claimed the same in the earlier assessment year. Secondly, m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
