TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complied with strictly and for failure to make compliance, the benefit cannot be granted to the assessee. In our view, both CIT(A) & Tribunal has not committed any error merely because separate account is opened. The capital account is required under the statute to be opened within six weeks. Therefore, the issue is also required to be answered in favour of the department against the assessee. Penalty u/s 271C (1)(c) - Held that:- In view of the bonafide mistake by the assessee, we are of the opinion that the provisions under 271C will not be attracted therefore, issue no. 3 is required to be answered in favour of the assessee. It is only that the assessee could not follow the procedure exactly. In that view of the matter, basic require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signated bank account specified by the rules? iii) Whether the Income Tax Authorities can be permitted to initiate proceedings for the levy of a penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act of 1961 in a case where the assessee has merely made a claim for the grant of an exemption by making a reference to a wrong provision of the Act of 1961? iv) Whether the ld. ITAT was justified in having upheld the validity of framing of two separate assessments, one u/s 154 and another u/s 147 in respect of the same income under the same head and that the assessment framed under section 147 will prevail over the one framed under section 154? 3. The brief facts of the case is the assesee originally filed its return of income claiming exemption u/s 54E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d s circular. Thus finally the income of the assessee remained at ₹ 5,53,520/- After passing the order u/s 154, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 dt. 26.10.94. In pursuance to this notice the assessee requested to drop the proceedings as the issue for which assessment is reopened u/s 148 has already been re-examined u/s 154 hence there is no escapement. However, the AO still framed the order u/s 148 and computed the income at ₹ 5,53,520/- which is the same amount at which the income was computed vide order u/s 154. 4. Mr. Kasliwal contended that there is a substantial compliance of the requirement of capital gain under Section 54E. He further contended that view which has been taken by both the authorities is requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification of an assessment order under section 154 would not debar the department from taking separate steps for reassessment under Section 147 of the Act. We thus do not find reason to interfere with the order of the first appellate authority as the ld. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the action of the AO in computing the income of ₹ 5,53,520/- in the reassessment. The first appellate order is, thus upheld. 9. In our view, the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. Therefore, the first issue is required to be answered in favour of the department. 10. Regarding second issue, the requirement under 54E are to be complied with strictly and for failure to make compliance, the benefit cannot be granted to the assessee. 11. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
