9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present facts, this is admittedly not so. In the present facts, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming a deduction which is prohibited in case of assessee. Thus the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act is imposable upon the appellant. - Decided against assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 193 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2017 - M. S. Sanklecha And Mr. Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. Mr. K. Gopal with Ms. Neha Paranjpe, i/b Jitendra Singh for the Appellant Mr. Tejveer Singh, for the Respondent ORDER PC 1. This appeal under Section 260 (A) of the Income Tax Act (the Act) challenges the order dated 2nd July 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 54 of the Act. This for the reason that, it was available only to individuals and Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The appellant is admittedly an incorporated company and thus not entitled to the benefit of capital gains, on account of sale of residential property. Thus, the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 25th October 2011, disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Act, and initiated penalty proceedings under 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 4. Thereafter, by an order dated 26th April 2012, the Assessing Officer, under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, imposed a minimum penalty of ₹ 41 lakhs being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. This after holding that the appellant had furnished inaccurate particula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that in facts of the present case, the appellant has admittedly made a claim in its return of income which is prohibited under the Act. The claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Act could only be made by individuals or HUF, while the appellant is admittedly a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Thus this was not a case, where a claim made was debatable or claim being made in the absence of any prohibition to make such a claim under the Act. In the aforesaid cases, one could possibly infer that the claim was made under the bona fide interpretation of the law. In the present facts, this is admittedly not so. In the present facts, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming a deduction wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
