TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,81,047/- where as per the Assessment Order the same is 2,46,662/- All particulars were given and there is no concealment as such which in my opinion warrants levy of penalty/s 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] has held that a mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law cannot by itself will amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Further, when the assessee has declared income of ₹ 5,00,971/- and the A.O completed the assessment on a at total income at ₹ 8,62,157/-, fail to understand as to how and why the penalty has been levied by the A.O on the assessed income at ₹ 8,62, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 62,300/- which was processed u/s 143(1). Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s 147 and the assessment was completed u/s 147/143 (3) on a total income of ₹ 15,76,510/-, after making addition of ₹ 10,75,539/- on account of deductions claimed u/s 24(b) and amount of ₹ 1,60,104/- for undisclosed amount of income from other sources. The assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who sustained an addition of ₹ 3,63,584/- out of the above additions. Thereafter, the assessee filed application u/s 154 and finally the income was recomputed at ₹ 8,62,157/-. Subsequently, the A.O initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalty of ₹ 2,70,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x sought to be evaded on the stated amount of ₹ 3,63,384/- as against the assessed income of ₹ 8,62,157/-. 3.5 Before me, the appellant has submitted that no penalty can be levied on the addition, since the addition sustained by the CIT(A)- 13, Delhi is on estimate basis. The appellant claimed that the AO has erred in computing the amount of disallowance in the hands of the appellant. 3.6 On considering the submissions of the appellant, I do not find any merit in it. The CIT(A), vide order dt 08,11,2016, had very well concluded that the allowable interest, under the provisions of Sec 24(b) is ₹ 217663 as against the claim of the appellant at ₹ 581047. This means that the appellant ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the CIT(A) and A.O. 8. I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and considered the various decisions relied by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that full particulars were given and there was no concealment of any particulars of income and disallowance of interest u/s 24(b) is mainly on account of estimated disallowance. 9. I find some force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. As per the return of income and as per the assessment order, there is no difference in the rent receipt and the municipals tax paid but only difference is on account of interest. The expenses u/s 24(a)/ 24(b) as per the return of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3559 Total- 581047 46666 10. From the above, it is clear that all particulars were given and there is no concealment as such which in my opinion warrants levy of penalty/s 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158 has held that a mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law cannot by itself will amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Further, when the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
