Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 555 - AT - Income TaxPenalty under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 - claim for deduction u/s 54B was made by filing inaccurate particulars - Held that:- Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee has furnished all the information relating to the sale of the land and also purchase of agricultural land in its return of income filed by way of Form ITR. Assessee is also eligible for deduction u/s 11 of the Act as it is carrying on activities of imparting education. The only income of the assessee which is chargeable to tax is the Long Term Capital Gain. The assessee has declared the LTCG, but has claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act. The assessee has not challenged the findings of the authorities below that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 54B of the Act and has accepted the taxability of the same. The AO has initiated the penalty proceedings for concealment of income, whereas the CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty on the ground of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, it is seen that the AO and the CIT (A) are not on the same page for levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. Further, mere disallowance of a claim will not automatically attract the levy of penalty. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd, (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ) has held that a mere making of the claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Similar view has been expressed by various High Courts and the Tribunal in the decisions cited Supra by the learned Counsel for the assessee. In view of the same, we delete the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT (A). - Decided in favour of assessee.
|