Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1647 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB - Held that:- It is noted from the records that the claims made by the assessee were based on experts advice and backed by certification issued in Form 10CCB. It is also noted that the revised return so filed was also a valid return filed within the stipulated time. The ld. AR relied on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chander Pal Bagga & Harshvardhan Chemicals Ltd [2002 (5) TMI 15 - RAJASTHAN High Court ] wherein it is held that no penalty can be imposed if exemption is claimed on the basis of advice of advocate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] held that inadvertent and bona fide error does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. It is also noted that the assessee had furnished the explanation vide letter dated 27-03-2013 (pg 183 to 188) that transaction is in the name nature of commercial transaction and the assessee received money from the company against the agreement to sale of land to the company and assessee has provided all the evidence in support of her contention. Thus in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in question. Thus the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
|