9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by way of additional documents, but the same were not accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). As decided in INTAS PHARMA LTD. [ 2021 (12) TMI 205 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] merely because claim on merit was not granted, penalty could not be levied - Also see RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Written Submission For the Revenue : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 300/- and agricultural income of Rs. 3,70,242/-. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), the same was dismissed for non-production of relevant documents to claim that the sale of land as an agriculture land. The assessee filed further appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 921 days, the same was also dismissed for not explaining the delay by filing proper affidavit by the assessee. In the meanwhile, the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thereby levied minimum penalty of Rs. 1,30,258/-. 5. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed further appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the levy of penalty but also rejected the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing for the Revenue submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in confirming the levy of penalty since the assessee failed to submit the relevant documents before any of the Lower Authorities for the claim of exemption u/s. 54B of the Act. Therefore the order passed by the Lower Authorities does not require any interference and therefore the present appeal filed by the Assessee is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. It is seen from the appellate order, the submissions of the assessee are as follows: (i) Disallowance u/s. 54B of Rs. 6,32,321/- is wrongly made as the land was used for agricultural purposes as per 7/12 extracts, thus, the land sold out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase was hearing on 21-02-2020 why not to levy penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) since Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee failed to make any reply to the above show cause notice, however with the materials available on record as well as the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance by dismissing the assessee appeal, thereby Ld. A.O. levied the minimum penalty of Rs. 1,30,258/-. 8.2. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee filed the Penalty appeal with a delay of 371 days which was falling partly during Covid-19 period and also age old diseases of the assessee. However the Ld. NFAC condoned the delay of 391 days in filing the above appeal, but rejected the claim of additional documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Whether Tribunal was right in so holding - Held, yes [Para 13] [In favour of assessee] 8.5. Similarly Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. D. Harindran reported in [2018] 97 taxmann.com 297 (Madras) held as follows: Section 271(1)(c), read with sections 54 and 260A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty - For concealment of income (Disallowance of claim, effect of) - Assessment year 2011-12- Assessee sold his residential property and purchased another residential property - Accordingly, assessee claimed exemption under section 54 - Assessing Officer disallowed same on ground that there was no evidence that property sold by assessee was used for residential purposes and, thus, computed long-term capital gain - Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty upon assessee Held, Yes [Para 7] [ in favour of assessee] 8.7. The Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.). Ltd. reported in [2010] 189 taxmann.com 322 (SC) held as follows: 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 m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
