TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim. The revenue argued that submitting an incorrect claim in law would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income. In order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Thus, making a wrong claim by the assessee cannot be said to be furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee - the order of CIT(A) set aside - penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No. 970/Hyd/2018 (Assessment Years: 2008-09) - - - Dated:- 18-10-2019 - SH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Madhapur, Hyderabad. Further, it was observed that by the time of transfer of property, the assessee was having more than one residential house and the condition to allow the exemption u/s 54F was clarified in the Act and hence, the assessee was not eligible to claim exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Further, the AO observed that the assessee having the knowledge of having two residential houses from which rental income was offered for the year under consideration, hence, the assessee had evidently claimed the deduction which is legally not tenable. 2.2 In view of the above observations, the AO opined that the assessee has made an incorrect claim of deduction resulting in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by not broug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant had made a legal claim under section 54F of the Act which did not find favour with the Assessing Officer. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the issue on which the penalty is levied is highly debatable in as much as he ought to have appreciated that the Commissioner (Appeals) in quantum proceedings has granted relief to the Appellant and the Hon'ble High Court has admitted the appeal filed by the Appellant against the order of Hon'ble ITAT, and therefore the penalty should not have been levied. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not following the principles laid down in the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record. A glance of provision of section 271(1)(c) would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The instant case was not the case of concealment of the income, but, the case of wrong claim. The revenue argued that submitting an incorrect claim in law would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income. In order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
