9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs Pvt. Ltd [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] held that inadvertent and bona fide error does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. It is also noted that the assessee had furnished the explanation vide letter dated 27- 03-2013 (pg 183 to 188) that transaction is in the name nature of commercial transaction and the assessee received money from the company against the agreement to sale of land to the company and assessee has provided all the evidence in support of her contention. Thus in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we concur with the findings that no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee proved. - Decided against revenue - D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 168 / 2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB on the basis of audit report in Form No. 10CCB.the claim of the assessee was based on legal document named Development Agreement . In the assessment proceedings also, assessee has submitted her explanation for justification of claim of deduction u/s 80IB vide letter dated 18-03-2013 (Refer PB pg 126 to 128) and letter dated 21-03-2013 26- 03-2013 (Refer PB pg 129 to 131). Therefore, the claim of assessee for deduction u/s 80IB was bona fide and based on experts advice. In the case of Guru Pragya, the claim of deduction of 80IB for A.Y. 2010-11 was disallowed by the AO for want to completion certificate but the same as allowed by CIT (Appeals)-1, Jaipur vide order dated 24-2- 2015 in ITA No. 25/13-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Chander Pal Bagga Harshwardhan Chemicals Minerals Ltd. (supra) wherein it is held that no penalty can be imposed if exemption is claimed on the basis of advice of advocate. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. (supra) has held that inadvertent and bona fide error does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. (iii) Even otherwise also as per sub clause 3 of Section 271AAA of the Act, no penalty is levibale u/s 271(1) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) It is also a fact that deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) is a deeming provision and addition was made on the basis of entries in the regular books of accounts which is created u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the joint venture housing project with Guru Pragya Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. In support of this claim, the assessee filed Certificate of CA in Form No 10CCB (Copy at PB Page 36-42). However, when it came to the knowledge of the assessee that the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) would attract the prolonged litigation with department, she choose the path of peace and in order to avoid the litigation, she withdrew the claim of deduction u/s 80IB vide letter dated 26.03.2013 (Copy at PB Page 130- 131) and filed revised return u/s 139(5) of Income Tax Act within the time allowed by the law. The Revised return of income was filed on 26- 03-2013 declaring total income at ₹ 11,69,99,170/- (Copy at PB Page 43-47) and due taxes were paid a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - on a/c of withdrawals of deduction u/s 80IB of Income Tax Act, 1961 on income earned on joint venture housing project with Guru Pragya Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. ii) ₹ 20,00,000/- on a/c of addition u/s 2(22) (e) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Further the AO also imposed penalty u/s 271AAA of Income Tax Act, 1961 by passing a separate order on alleged undisclosed income which she determined by treating the land under JV as outright sale on income of ₹ 10,60,80,000/-, therefore on same income two different penalties were imposed one treating the undisclosed income and other for concealment of particulars of income. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) who cancelled the penalty vide his detailed order dated 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
