9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see s claim cannot fasten upon the assessee liability of penalty u.s 271(1)(c), unless the assessee s claim is found to be ex-facie bogus - assessee s claim by no stretch of imagination can be said to be apparently bogus claim. Hence, in our considered opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the case authorities below have erred in levying the penalty u.s. 271(1)(c) upon the assessee. The only aspect in the present case is that the claim of deduction was made, which has not been allowed because of the non-satisfaction of the requirement of size of the project. We note that in similar situation in the case of CIT vs. Petels Engineers Limited [ 2013 (11) TMI 1374 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] has held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) is not exigib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tructions. The return of income for the year 2010-11 was filed on 14/10/2010 declaring total income of ₹ 9,92,510/- after availing deduction of ₹ 31.26.206/- u/s 80IB(10) of I.T.Act.1961. The assessee has constructed a building and the project has been completed during the year and income from the same of ₹ 31,26,206/- was claimed as deduction u/s 80IB(10). The area of the plot on which the building project was completed during the year is 18,215 sq. ft. i.e. less than 1 acre. The case was selected for scrutiny wherein the AO disallowed deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) on the ground that the project developed by the assessee was not covered by Board Notification and the said finding was confirmed by the CIT(A) vide order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the AO as well as the written submissions filed by the AR of appellant. There is no dispute that the plot area of the housing project in case of appellant was less than 1 acre. The decision of the Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Vandana Properties [2010] 353 ITR 36 [Bom] does not support the claim of the appellant in any manner as the facts are entirely different. In case of Vandana Properties, the plot area was more than one acre and the issue was allowability of deduction u/s 80IB(10) on a new housing project when that plot had some existing housing projects. It is not desirable to pick out a word or a sentence from any decision and the judgement must be read as a whole. In Vandana Properties, the present issue of allowabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as held in para 9 that 9. We are not concerned in the present case with the mens rea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this case, as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate particulars. In Webster's Dictionary, the word inaccurate has been defined as:- not accurate, not exact or correct: not according to truth; erroneous; as an inaccurate statement, copy or transcript. We have already seen the meaning of the word particulars in the earlier part of this judgment. Reading the words in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the Return, which ore not accurate, not exact or correct not according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the preceding paragraphs, in my considered opinion, the penalty of ₹ 9,66,000/- imposed by the AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is justified and needs no interference. Hence, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is confirmed. Thus, grounds of appeal are dismissed. 6. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the records. 8. We have carefully considered submissions. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer to impose penalty in the course of proceedings of the Act, if he is satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In other words, in order to lev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retch of imagination can be said to be apparently bogus claim. Hence, in our considered opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the case authorities below have erred in levying the penalty u.s. 271(1)(c) upon the assessee. 10. Moreover, the only aspect in the present case is that the claim of deduction was made, which has not been allowed because of the non-satisfaction of the requirement of size of the project. We note that in similar situation the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Petels Engineers Limited (142 taxmann.com 433) has held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) is not exigible on denial of claim u/s 80IA. Therefore, levy of penalty in the present case is not justified on this count too. 11. Accordingly, in the background ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
