TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatutory provision, the assessee had claimed the excess deduction on account of payment of interest payment of the self–occupied property. However, for claiming such deduction, no malafide intention can be imputed to the assessee. As such deduction claimed possibly could be on account of human error, no penalty can be imposed under section 271(1)(c), as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Price W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year under consideration on 5th September 2008, declaring total income of ₹ 1,24,328. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee in the computation of income while computing the income under the head house property though has shown income from the house property being SOP as nil but claimed interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) also confirmed imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). 4. Learned Authorised Representative submitted before us, the excess deduction claimed on account of interest payment was a bonafide mistake and human error. Therefore, there should not be any imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) as the assessee did not make a deliberate attempt to either conceal its income or furnish i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 237 ITR 510 (Del.), relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen the basis for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is excess deduction claimed on account of inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
