TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. CIT(A), Chandigarh dated 19.10.2012. 2. In this appeal the Revenue has raised the following ground: The ld. CIT(A) is right in canceling the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer even when the assessee did not contested in appeal the additions/disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 10(37) on account of interest on enhanced compensation of compulsory acquisition on which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee was illiterate and he had been under general impression that the total amount was exempt. This reply was not accepted and applying the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K.P. Madhusudhanan V CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (S.C) levied penalty amounting to ₹ 6,41,330/- at the minimum rate of 100%. 4 On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the issue involved was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore us, the ld. DR for the revenue submitted that the assessee had not shown the income from interest in the return, therefore, Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and accordingly penalty was levied. 6 On the other hand, the ld. counsel of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A). He also pointed out that it cannot be said that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hanshuyam (HUF) (supra) was rendered on 16.7.2009. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that some part of interest payment compensation would form part of compensation. The Assessing Officer has not bifurcated which part of the interest is u/s 28 of land Acquisition Act and which other part is taxable. Therefore, at the time of filing of return the issue was really debatable. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
