9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliancepetro Products Pvt.Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] . In this case, it was duly expounded that if certain claim of the assessee is denied the same cannot ipso fact lead to the conclusion that the assessee is guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Furthermore, Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa [ 1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] has also expounded that if the conduct of the assesee is not found to be contumacious the authority may not levy penalty. Thus assessee does not deserve to be visited with the rigors of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Ld.CIT(A) has completely erred in observing that penalty has to be levied merely b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ullible assessee in the LTCG in the assessment order u/s 143(3) which were incurred more than 6 years old besides, the fact that the assessee did not claim the deduction u/s 54 on the purchase of new residential house and thus no LTCG became chargeable to tax. The penalty based on such illegal disallowances in the assessment is bad in law and hence needs to be deleted. 4. That the penalty levied on the basis of a defective notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the order of penalty and hence the order passed by the AO needs to be quashed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has denied certain expenditure, which were claimed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of same has been made till 25.08.2012. V. Thereafter in revised Long Term Capital Gain working the assessee took cost of acquisition at ₹ 44,06,868/- (Originally taken at ₹ 46 lakh) by adding the cost of Oat being ₹ 32 lakh and interest on housing loan paid till 25.08.2012 at ₹ 12.06.868/-. VI. It was found from the system database that assessee has claimed the deduction us. 24(b) in respect of the interest paid on housing loan for the previous year. This showed that assessee was claim double deduction as it was adding the same again to the cost of acquisition of the property which is not permissible in Law. Thereafter the Assessing Officer did not allow the interest of ₹ 12,06,868/- paid by asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... moot question is inaccurate particulars was submitted and this is itself is sufficient reason for levying the penalty. 7. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 9. We find that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has been levied merely because a small part of the expenditure claimed to have been incurred in acquisition of new flat was not accepted by the authorities below. We find that on the facts and circumstances of the cse the claim of the assessee is not ex-facie bogus. In these circumstances, assesee cannot be is said to have been guilty of contumacious conduct or that assessee was guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
