Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 93 - ITAT DELHIPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - grants and contribution made by the assessee to various institution and deduction claimed thereon u/s 36(1)(xii) was disallowed by AO, however, same was allowed by the CIT(A) and ITAT - whether assessee has failed to give any bonafide explanation in respect of the claim - claim of benefit of weighted deduction u/s 35 being an incentive - HELD THAT:- We find that the hundred percent claim of the grant to notified institution was allowed u/s 36(1)(xii) but the balance 25% claimed u/s 35(1) has not been allowed to the assessee. It is settled position of the law that mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in the law by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. See RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] The only question is regarding the weighted claim of 25% u/s 35(1) on the same grants made to notified institution, which has been allowed under section 36(1)(xii). Thus, we cannot say that the claim under section 35(1) is based on any inaccurate particulars of income. CIT(A) has upheld the penalty only on the ground that assessee has failed to give any bonafide explanation in respect of the claim. We do not agree with the said finding of the CIT(A). The assessee has duly explained before the AO the reasons as why the deduction u/s 35(1) has been claimed, which have been also reiterated by us in the brief facts of the case. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and direct the AO to delete the penalty in all the three assessment years under consideration. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|