9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for short). The CIT appeals granted at partial relief to the assessee upon which the issue reached the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned judgment deleted the penalty upon which the Revenue has filed this appeal. 4. We have perused the orders on record with the assistance of learned counsel for the Revenue. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment in order to delete the penalty, has made following observations: "We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the AO has made additions on three counts share transactions, House property income and dividend stripping, that the AO had levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Secondly, it is an accepted principle of taxation jurisprudence that additions made during assessment proceedings cannot result in automatic levy of penalty. Therefore, we delete the penalty confirmed by the FAA with regard to share transactions. We find that the assessee had claimed that all the three house properties were his SOPs and he had made a justifiable claim in that regard. In our opinion, the provisions of the Act dealing with SOP are very clear and unambiguous and they stipulate that the assessee cannot claim SOP deduction for more than one property. In the return filed by the assessee, he had claimed that all the three properties were to be treated as self occupied . In the explanation it was stated that in one of the propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y particulars of income or has furnished any inaccurate particular of income. Further, it is noticed that there were no such specific requirements in the return form applicable to the year under consideration. Such requirement of the column in the return has been inserted by amendment in return form. ITR 6, at p 17, "Sch.CG capital gain" S. No.3(d) which is applicable from asst. yr. 2007-08. A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee demonstrated that their claim was bonafide claim. In the light of above discussion, the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n completely on its earlier decision in case of Walter Saldanah. Learned counsel for the Revenue correctly pointed out that the decision of the Tribunal in the said case of Walter Saldanah was challenged by the Revenue and the Revenue's Income Tax Appeal No.62 of 2011 is admitted. Ordinarily, therefore we would have entertained the Revenue's present appeal also on this issue. However, we notice from the order of CIT appeals that the Revenue implication in connection with this issue is barely Rs. 66,500/. Only on this ground of the revenue impact being small, this appeal is not entertained. We make it clear that nothing stated in this order would prevent the Revenue from raising all contentions in Income Tax Appeal No.62 of 2011 con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
