TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he entire amount of gratuity - The Assessing officer apart from making addition to the declared income, imposed penalty for taking wrong plea for exemption - Levy of penalty was set aside by the CIT(A) on the ground that claim of the assessee was under a bonafide mistake and the assessee has given all the relevant particulars in the return - This view has been upheld by the Tribunal. - Held that, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in deleting the penalty without appreciating the fact that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income by relying upon hearsay and unreliable interpretation of legal provisions? 2. The assessee was an employee of New India Assurance Company Limited. He voluntarily retired and received ex-grat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in (2008) 215 CTR 306 in which referring the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT, (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 228 deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. Ld. AR of the assessee also cited the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Mica Wood Pvt. Ltd. reported in 170 Taxman 256 (Del.) in support of the claim of the assessee. Keeping in view the findings ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28 referred by the Tribunal has been overruled in subsequent judgment in Union of India and others Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors and others (2008) 13 Supreme Court Cases 369. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. 6. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal categorically found that claim of the assessee though inadmissible was put forward under a mistaken bonafide view. This finding is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
