TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucture facilities under the STPI Scheme. All details of the claim made u/s 80 IA are filed by the assessee, along with the return of income. Under these circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the explanation given by the assessee that it was under a genuine belief that it was entitled for relief u/s 80 IA of the Act is bonafide. The assessee acted under the guidance and advice of a Chartered Accountant. Hence in our view it was under a bonafide belief that it is entitled to the claim for deduction under provisions of s.80 IA of the Act. The provisions under the Income Tax Act are highly complicated and its different for a layman to understand the same. Even seasoned tax professionals have difficulty in comprehending these pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the return of income. The assessee has claimed that it is engaged in (i) developing, (ii) operating and maintaining (iii) developing, operating and maintaining, infrastructure facility. The A.O. records that the assessee company had enclosed copy of agreements of Service Agreement, Hire Agreement for interiors and Hire Agreement for air conditioning and power, between assessee company and its clients namely M/s Global Vantedge Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ephinay India Pvt.Ltd. The A.O. disallowed the claim for deduction u/s 80 IA. He relied that (a) the assessee is merely providing certain interiors, furniture, fixtures and generator back up power services etc. for BPO/Software companies which are lessees of the building owned by its Director and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 271(1)(c ) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. On appeal the First Appellate Authority confirmed the same. Further aggrieved the assessee is before us on the following grounds. 1. That the authority below has erred on facts and in law in upholding penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act amounting to ₹ 13,20,460/-. 2. That the authority below has arbitrarily disregarded the explanation filed and evidence filed on record. 3. That the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act deserves to be cancelled which is in contravention of settled legal position. 3. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee Mr.Salil Kapoor stated that the assessee was guided solely by legal advise in ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to auditor s report in form 10CCB and submitted that nowhere in the audit report the sub section under which the claim was made has been given. Similarly he submitted that the STPI authorities have registered the assessee for computer software exports and not for supply of air conditioners etc. He tried to demonstrate the falsity of the claim made by the assessee and submitted that the penalty has to be sustained. 5. Rival contentions heard. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and a perusal of orders of lower authorities, case laws cited, we hold as follows. 6. The assessee has made a claim u/s 80 IA of the Act. Along with the return of income the assessee filed report from a Chartered Accountant i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shing of inaccurate particulars of income. 6.2. In the case of CIT vs. Shyama A Bijapurkar (supra) the Hon ble Delhi High Court has held as follows. On a further appeal being preferred before the Tribunal, the Tribunal took note of the facts namely that the assessee had filed the return treating it as a long term capital gain on the basis of advice given by a tax consultant, that it was not a case where it could be said that there was concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars inasmuch as the claim was put forth on the basis of an opinion of a tax consultant, and that the assessee was under an impression, a bona fide one, that the tax on the employees stock option plan could be a long term capital gain. In our considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
