9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gopal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant urges the following two questions for our consideration:- (1) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in upholding the decision of the learned CIT(A) confirming the penalty of Rs. 41,00,754/- under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 as imposed by the learned Assessing Officer?" (2)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in ignoring the fact that the claim for exemption under Section 54 made by the Appellant is a bona fide mistake which does not deserve penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act?" 2. The appellant company is in the business of letting out of immovable property. For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... negating the reliance by the appellant on decision of the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 SC. to contend that penalty is not imposable only on account of having made an ineligible claim. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT)(A), without success. By an order dated 16th January 2013, the CIT (A) upheld the penalty of Rs. 41 lakhs imposed by the Assessing Officer. 6. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 2nd July 2014, upheld the penalty. The impugned order holds that the decision of the Apex Court in Reliance Petroproducts (Supra) would have no application, as it is not a case of ineligible claim, but a cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culars. In this case all the accounts under the Act, have as a finding of fact found that in making a claim under Section 54 of the Act, the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars. Thus the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act is imposable upon the appellant. (iii) In the above view, question no.1 as raised does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Therefore not entertained. 9. Regarding Question no.2 :- (i) The claim of the appellant that this was a bona fide mistake in claiming exemption under Section 54 was urged for the first time before the Tribunal. However mere statement that a mistake is made not supported by any evidence, in the face of a statutory bar in claiming an exemption, has not been accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
