Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 502 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - assessee earned capital gains and claimed exemption u/s. 54F & 54EC - deduction u/s 54F was solely due to difference in interpretations of the provisions and therefore, the penalty was not to be levied on this count - HELD THAT:- Assessee considered the sale transactions as three sale transactions and made three separate investments in REC bonds to claim deduction u/s 54EC. The assessee accordingly claimed deduction of aggregate investment. The assessee furnished full particulars and made the claim in the return of income which was partly accepted. Mere non-acceptance of claim made in the return of income would not attract penalty. In such a case, the ratio of decision of CIT V/s Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] was squarely applicable to assessee’s case. In this decision, it has been held by Hon’ble Court that mere making of wrong claim do not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of finding that any details supplied by the assessee is incorrect or false, penalty could not be levied. AO must prove that there was concealment of income or the return of income furnished by the assessee or documents submitted by assessee were based on incorrect fact, falsity and untruth. It is not a fit case for imposition of penalty. The other two additions are small additions which, in any way, is not a fit case for levy of penalty considering the fact that the assessee is a senior citizen and may have missed out to compute pension and interest correctly. Therefore, we by deleting the impugned penalty, we allow the appeal.
|