Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1034 - AT - Income TaxLevying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Proof of concealment of income by the assessee - AO in quantum proceedings dismissed excess claim of assessee u/s 54 - HELD THAT:- As identical facts and circumstances of the case quite similar and identical to the case of ITO Vs. M. Narayanswami [2010 (10) TMI 670 - ITAT, BANGALORE] wherein, held that the assessee has furnished all particulars regarding sale of immovable property and claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act which was partly denied by the AO. In such a situation the claim of deduction u/s 54 centres around interpretation of a provision based on various judgment of Hon'ble High Court and orders of the Tribunal. The identical situation is clearly discernable from two of the assessment orders wherein, the AO by relying and referring to certain judgments and factual matrix of the case recalculated the long term capital gain and allowed ½ share to the assessee u/s 54 of the Act and remaining ½ part was disallowed making addition in the hands of the assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be lead on the assessment by alleging that the assessee had concealed particulars of income and also furnished inaccurate particulars of income particularly when the AO himself has in the assessment order at page 3 only alleged that the assessee had deliberately or without any reasonable cause concealed the particulars of income without making further allegations. As in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] held that merely because the claim of assessee was not accepted or not found to be acceptable by the revenue authorities does not entitle the AO to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee.
|