TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accurate particulars of income. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that merely because claim made by the assessee under Section 54/54F was disallowed by the assessing officer in the assessment proceeding, that cannot be a reason to conclude that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or concealed any part of his income.Penalty levied by the assessing officer under Section 271(1)(c) is not justified. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 233/Mds/2016 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2016 - SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant- Shri D.Anand, Advocate For the Respondent- Shri A.V.Sreekanth, JCIT ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and claimed the statutory deduction under Section 54/54F of the Act. This ₹ 3,27,06,437/- includes the cost of the land and the development carried out by the assessee. The existence of residential house is evidenced from the copy of the property tax payment receipt produced before the assessing officer. The assessing officer found that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars in claiming the exemption under Section 54/54F of the Act. 3. According to the learned counsel, it is not in dispute that the assessee has disclosed the source of inheritance of property from his father. It is also disclosed before the assessing officer that the investment made in the residential house. The assessee has also produced the copy of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the assessee submitted that making a claim before the assessing officer after furnishing all the relevant materials does not in any way amounts to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealing any part of income. Therefore, the CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty levied by the assessing officer. The learned counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gem Granites (2013) 86 CCH 160. Copy of which was filed by the learned counsel for the assessee. 4. On the contrary, Shri A.V.Sreekanth, the learned department representative submitted that it is not in dispute that the assessee inherited 10.03 grounds of land along with superstructure measuring approximately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssions on either side and also perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee acquired 10.03 grounds of land along with a superstructure from his father Shri P.V.Devakumaran by means of a settlement deed dated 19.11.2010. The assessee has also sold the land subsequently on 06.12.2010 for a consideration of ₹ 4 crores. The assessee further claimed before the assessing officer that he invested the sale proceeds in residential house and claimed deduction under Section 54/54F. The assessing officer found that the assessee invested the funds in agricultural land and not in residential house and therefore not eligible for exemption under Section 54/54F of the Act. The fact remains that the assessee has furnished all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has concealed any particulars of his income. Similarly, it cannot also be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. If it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income or concealed any part of the income, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the levy of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) is not justified. 7. We have also carefully gone through the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. cited supra. The Apex Court after considering the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) found that in order to expose the assessee to penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the case shall be strictly covered by the provisions of Section 271 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
