9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., . [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] comes to rescue the assessee. In this case it was expounded that the rejection of claim by the Assessing Officer cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the assessee deserves to be visited with rigours of penalty u/.s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Vs. State of Orissa [ 1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] through larger bench had expounded that the authorities may not levy penalty if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. We find that on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the submissions of the assessee and explanations are not ex facie bogus or c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs for the year under consideration, it is seen that during the F.Y. 2008-09 relevant to A.Y. 2009-10, the assessee has made following investments in specified Bonds u/s. 54EC of I.T. Act, 1961. a. ₹ 48,60,000/- in Non-Convertible Redeemable Taxable Bonds issued by National Highway Authority of India on a Long Term Capital Gain of ₹ 46,10,130/- for A.Y. 2008-09 (F.Y. 2007-08). b. ₹ 48,60,0007- in Non-Convertible Redeemable Taxable Bonds-Series- VIII issued by Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd on a Long Term Capital Gain of ₹ 45,83,160/- for A.Y. 2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09) The assessee has made the above two investments in-accordance with the provisions of section 54EC of the Act. The Long Term Capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by M/s. National Highway Authority .within six months and claimed the exemption u/s. 54EC of the said Act, in his return of income filed for the A. Y. 2008-09. (2) The assessee then sold another residential flat on April 23, 2008 for a sale consideration of ₹ 50,89,5007- and earned capital gains thereon of ₹ 45,83,160/- on the sale of the said flat. The assessee invested ₹ 48,60,000/- being the capital gains earned in the Capital Gains Bonds issued by M/s Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd within six months and claimed the exemption u/s. 54EC of the said Act, in his return of income filed for the A. Y. 2009-10. (3) The assessee had sold the said two flats in two different Financial years and the limit con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o wrong advice of the professional was rejected by the Assessing Officer. Explanation regarding inadvertent mistake in interest income was also rejected by the Assessing Officer and penalty was levied. 4. Upon assessee s appeal learned CIT(A) reproduced Assessing Officer s observation as well as assessee s submission. Thereafter she referred to case laws and without pointing out how these case laws are relevant confirmed the penalty. 5. Against this order assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. As regards denial of exemption u/s. 54EC, we note that assessee s claim was denied on the sole ground that as per the provisions of the Act investments cannot exceed ₹ 50 lakhs in one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
