Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 882 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - benefit of section 80-IB denied - Held that:- As relying on case of VISWAS PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ACIT [2012 (11) TMI 1117 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] the assessee was entitled to proportionate deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of 28 units where the construction area did not exceed 1500 sq.ft. Therefore, it is not a case where the deduction u/s.80IB(10)(c) by the assessee was entirely not allowable to the assessee. Only that part of the deduction pertaining to units where the units area exceeded 1500 sq.ft claim for deduction u/s. 80IB (10) was not allowable to the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claim for deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act made by the assessee in its return of income was entirely wrong or false. In the instant case, the penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has concealed its particulars of income in respect of income of ₹ 16,65,433/-. However, it is observed that no material has been brought on record to show that the assessee has concealed its particular of income. Rather, in the instant case, the assessee disclosed the entire income and simultaneously claimed deduction of that income u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. It is not a case of concealment of income. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd.(2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT)has held that merely making of a claim of deduction which is found to be not allowable does not invite penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. In the instant case, in absence of details of any income where particulars were found to be concealed by the assessee, in our considered view, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is untenable. - Decided in favour of assessee
|