9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Merely because the AO did not accept such a stand of the assessee, would not automatically permit revenue to levy penalty. So much, it made abundantly clear by the Supreme Court through series of judgments particularly in case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Limited [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] . Further, the reference to the Chartered Accountant's opinion in favour of the assessee made by the Tribunal also cannot be discarded. We do not find any assertion of the revenue at any stage of the proceedings that no such opinion existed. Penalty for breach of Section 54EC - HELD THAT:- Amount involved is extremely small and we therefore, do not entertain the question without going into merits thereof. We however record the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spute of the revenue in this appeal relates to the judgment of the Tribunal deleting penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer against the respondent assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short). 3. Case of the revenue is that the assessee had earned sizable income, which should have been offered to the tax by way of capital gain, which in the return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010 11, assessee had not done. It is only upon the Assessing Officer noticing the huge mismatch between the assessee's declared income and the claim of the refund of advance tax, that the revenue decided to take the return of the assessee in scrutiny during which the necessary facts could be g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC). The Tribunal also noted that before filing the return, the assessee had obtained an opinion of the Chartered Accountant why the receipt in question was not exhibitable to tax. Primarily, on such grounds, the Tribunal deleted the penalty and allowed the assessee's appeal. 4. Appearing for the revenue, learned counsel Shri Chhotaray vehemently contended that the assessee had not made true and full disclosures of income in the return filed. The existence of the so called letter dated 20th September, 2010 was doubtful. In any case, by merely writing the letter giving furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t accept such a stand of the assessee, would not automatically permit revenue to levy penalty. So much, it made abundantly clear by the Supreme Court through series of judgments particularly in case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Limited (supra). Further, the reference to the Chartered Accountant's opinion in favour of the assessee made by the Tribunal also cannot be discarded. We do not find any assertion of the revenue at any stage of the proceedings that no such opinion existed. 7. We may now refer to the decision cited by Shri Chhotaray. In case of Commissioner of Income tax Vs. A. Sreenivasa Pai 242 ITR 29 Division Bench of Kerala High Court referred to the explanation added by the Finance Act, 1964 and subsequently, subst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for confirming the view of the Tribunal. No question of law in this respect arises. 8. The second question pertains to penalty for breach of Section 54EC of the Act. Amount involved is extremely small and we therefore, do not entertain the question without going into merits thereof. We however record the confession of Shri Joshi for the assessee that the question whether investment under section 54EC can be total of ₹ 50 lakhs in all or would be capped to ₹ 50 lakhs in a assessment year, permitting similar such investment in the next year was not free from doubt. The assessee had no intention to breach this ceiling. 9. Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. 3. In the result, without recording separate reasons, this ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
