TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition to the returned income. Therefore the very basis of levy of penalty has no legs to stand. Further, it is settled law that mere disallowance of claim does not entitle levy of penalty as held in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd, [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] . Furthermore the employer had not disputed the claim for exemption of HRA. Therefore in the light of the above findings, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the penalty made u/s.271(1) (c) - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - I.T.A. No.26/CHNY/2019 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2019 - Shri N.R.S. Ganesan, Judicial Member And Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Ms. Suhrith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vied under Section 271 (1) (c). 4. The Learned Commissioner has erred in upholding the penalty of ₹ 2,17,821/- under Section 271 (1) (c) insofar as the conditions stipulated under the provision are not attracted in the present case as there is neither any concealment of income nor has the Appellant furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. 5. Furthermore, it is respectfully submitted that, in any event, making an incorrect claim does not per se amount to concealment of particulars under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd [(2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)J may be seen in this rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-17(1), Chennai vide order dated 31.03.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) declaring total income of ₹ 26,38,801/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of exemption of HRA u/s.10(13A) of the Act of ₹ 4,15,350/- as assessee had failed to produce the evidence in support of the claim. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the claim on account of depreciation, bank charges, repairs etc., of ₹ 45,951/-. The said assessment order attained finality as the assessee had chosen not to file appeal before the CIT(A). However, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the delay in filing the appeal was neither willful nor wanton one, if the delay is not condoned it would cause severe hardship to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. Departmental Representative opposed condonation of delay. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. From the perusal of the condonation petition, it would suggest that the assessee was diagnosed with Cancer in December, 2017 and the ld. CIT(A) passed the order on 20.03.2018, which is subsequent to the diagnosis of the illness, needless to mention that treatment of cancer is very painful and it is not possible to focus on other issues when he was under the treatment and therefore in our opinion, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
