9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to Rs. 4,60,200, for two residential accommodations. The assessee had taken both the properties on a rent of Rs. 25,000 p.m. each and had claimed exemption for both the properties. The AO disallowed the exemption claimed in respect of one property amounting to Rs. 2,30,100. 3. In the penalty proceedings, the AO held that in the assessment proceedings, the AO had made out a clear case that exemption u/s 10(13A) of the Act can be allowed in respect of only one property; and that as such, the assessee had committed the default of concealing the particulars of his income as well as of filing inaccurate particulars thereof. Accordingly, penalty of Rs. 75,933 was levied. 4. By virtue of the impugned order, holding that the assessee had clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the particulars of his income and of furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. 7. We have heard both the parties and have perused the material on record. The factum of the assessee having taken two residential accommodations on rent is not disputed. The only issue is as to whether by claiming exemption with regard thereto, the assessee has rendered himself liable to levy of concealment penalty. 8. Section 10(13A) of the I.T. Act, under which, the exemption was claimed reads as follows : "10. In computing the total income of the previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included - (13A) Any special allowance specifically granted to an assessee by his employer to meet the expenditu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was in view of "CIT v. Justice S.C. Mittal" (supra), that the assessee harbored the belief that he was entitled to exemption u/s 10(13A) with regard to both the residential accommodations held by him, whereas the interpretation of the department is that the assessee was entitled to the exemption only qua the one residential accommodation and that by claiming the unavailable exemption, he has become liable to levy of concealment penalty. 11. In "Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd." (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in order to be covered by section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there has to be a concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee; that further, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate partic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was no finding recorded that these particulars were inaccurate. It is the case of a claim of exemption made by the assessee, which, in the eyes of the department is a claim not sustainable in law. 13. Evidently, therefore, "Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd." (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The claim made by the assessee was viewed differently by the assessee and the department. It was, as such, only a case of a difference of opinion and not only that, the opinion held by the assessee was prompted by the decision in "CIT v. Justice S.C. Mittal" (supra). No concealment penalty is, in such a situation, attracted. 14. The best case of the department against the assessee could be that the claim made by him, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
