Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 41 - AT - Income TaxPenalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) - claim made u/s. 10(38) not allowable - HELD THAT:- What is clearly coming out from the fact that it is not disputed by either party about the income arising as Capital Gain on SSNNL bond. It is mere claim of the assessee made in his return of income that the same is exempt u/s 10(38) is not considered by the assessing officer in the quantum order. Against the order of the quantum revenue and assessee has filed their respective appeals. In the case of Shri Manan Patel and in the case of Maulikumar M Patel. [2016 (11) TMI 1710 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] - these four appeals of assessee and revenue which is in relation to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) it was decided by the tribunal that the gain which is arising out of the SSNNL bond is capital gain and not interest on securities. Therefore, as contended by AR of the assessee that when the tribunal has already contended that the gain arising from the SSNNL bond is chargeable to capital gain only then the issue in the penalty proceeding is only disallowance of claim of the assessee and the case of the assessee is squarely covered with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] We find force in the argument of AR of the assessee that considering the overall facts, at the best, the claim of the assessee can be regarded as wrong which cannot be equated with the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Considering, the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court on the issue, we hold that there is no error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in law as well as on facts and the appeal is of the revenue is not maintainable and is dismissed.
|