TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 1961 Act and it constituted bonafide explanation and reasonable cause to take it out of the penal provisions as are contained in Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act read with Explanation 1. - Matter remanded back - appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No.750/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 9-8-2018 - SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri. Kapil Sheth Revenue : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore (DR) ORDER PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member This appeal, filed by assessee, being ITA No. 750/Mum/2017, is directed against appellate order dated 29.10.2014 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (hereinafter called the CIT(A) ), for assessment year 2010-11, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from penalty order dated 23.09.2014 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called the AO ) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act ) for AY 2010-11. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the memo of appeal filed with the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide penalty orders dated 23.09.2014 passed by the AO. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order dated 23.09.2014 passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed fist appeal before learned CIT(A) and submitted that due to the following circumstances as enumerated below, the assessee was under bonafide belief that the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s. 54F of the Act to the tune of ₹ 30.39, 742/- , which was claimed in the revised return filed by the assessee u/s 153A of the 1961 Act. The circumstances enumerated by the assessee to come to conclusion of having bonafide belief that the assessee was entitled for deduction u/s 54F of the 1961 Act were as under as extracted from the appellate order of learned CIT(A) :- The appellant had two residential fiats other than the newly acquired fiat on the date of sale of the sold asset' one of which was inadvertently as office premises which resulted in the appellant's wrong claim u/s. 54F of the Act. Another flat at Sahara Tower was under redevelopment. The appellant was not in possession of said property during the year under consideration and thus appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 10.02.2012, the assessee was asked by AO to file return of income u/s. 153A of the 1961 Act . The assessee filed return of income u/s 153A of the 1961 Act on 21.09.2013 which was later revised by assessee on 13.01.2014, wherein assessee additionally claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the 1961 Act of ₹ 30, 39, 742/-. On being confronted by the AO to explain on merits the claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act as the assessee had more than one house property which in the opinion of the AO made him ineligible to claim said deduction u/s 54F of the 1961 Act , the assessee withdrew the said claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings conducted u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(2)/143(3) of the 1961 Act, which ultimately led to the additions to the tune of ₹ 30, 39, 742/- being made in the assessment order passed by the AO which was later confirmed by learned CIT(A). As per provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act read with explanation 1 , if the taxpayer come forward and offer an explanation as to bonafide of its claim and reasonable cause, it will take the taxpayer out of the clutches of penalty provisions as are contained in Section 271(1)(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said so called bonafide reasoning offered by the assessee to claim deduction u/s 54F by filing revised return is reproduced here under:- The appellant had two residential fiats other than the newly acquired fiat on the date of sale of the sold asset' one of which was inadvertently as office premises which resulted in the appellant's wrong claim u/s. 54F of the Act. Another flat at Sahara Tower was under redevelopment. The appellant was not in possession of said property during the year under consideration and thus appellant could not exercise his dominion over the said residential house. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the appellant is owning this residential house. None of the authorities have gone into deliberations as to the merit of the claim of the assessee as to bonafide explanation and reasonable cause both on merits and on law as no findings/conclusions are amenable from the orders of the authorities below. The authorities below have not given any specific findings with reasoning as to the sustainability or otherwise of plea of the assessee to be having a bonafide belief and reasonable cause that the assessee was entitled for deduction u/s 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
