Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 234 - ITAT MUMBAILevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - denial of the assessee’s claim under section 80IB - HELD THAT:- It is not the case that assessee’s claim was exfacie bogus - CIT(A) in dealing with the penalty order has distinguished the assessee’s reliance upon decision in the case of Vandana Property [2012 (4) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] by holding that assessee is picking lines from the above Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court decision. CIT(A) has misled himself in distinguishing the assessee’s reliance upon the decision in the case of Reliance Petroproducts [2010 (3) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT] wherein as expounded that mere denial of an assessee’s claim cannot fasten upon the assessee liability of penalty u.s 271(1)(c), unless the assessee’s claim is found to be ex-facie bogus - assessee’s claim by no stretch of imagination can be said to be apparently bogus claim. Hence, in our considered opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the case authorities below have erred in levying the penalty u.s. 271(1)(c) upon the assessee. The only aspect in the present case is that the claim of deduction was made, which has not been allowed because of the non-satisfaction of the requirement of size of the project. We note that in similar situation in the case of CIT vs. Petels Engineers Limited [2013 (11) TMI 1374 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) is not exigible on denial of claim u/s 80IA. Therefore, levy of penalty in the present case is not justified - Decided in favour of assessee.
|