Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 256 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1 )(c) - disallowances of claimed expenses in the LTCG - AO has denied certain expenditure, which were claimed to have been incurred in connection with the acquisition of the flat for claiming deduction u/s 54 - HELD THAT:- We find that on the facts and circumstances of the cse the claim of the assessee is not ex-facie bogus. In these circumstances, assesee cannot be is said to have been guilty of contumacious conduct or that assessee was guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. This proposition is duly supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliancepetro Products Pvt.Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT]. In this case, it was duly expounded that if certain claim of the assessee is denied the same cannot ipso fact lead to the conclusion that the assessee is guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Furthermore, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] has also expounded that if the conduct of the assesee is not found to be contumacious the authority may not levy penalty. Thus assessee does not deserve to be visited with the rigors of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Ld.CIT(A) has completely erred in observing that penalty has to be levied merely because certain tax has to be found to be further payable. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|