TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income would not attract penalty. In such a case, the ratio of decision of CIT V/s Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] was squarely applicable to assessee s case. In this decision, it has been held by Hon ble Court that mere making of wrong claim do not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of finding that any details supplied by the assessee is incorrect or false, penalty could not be levied. AO must prove that there was concealment of income or the return of income furnished by the assessee or documents submitted by assessee were based on incorrect fact, falsity and untruth. It is not a fit case for imposition of penalty. The other two additions are small ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4EC was claimed for Rs.100 Lacs. The assessee invested into thee REC Bonds in respect of three sales. However, Ld. AO held that the land sold was one and therefore, the exemption would be allowable only to the extent of Rs.50 Lacs. The assessee was saddled with other small additions of difference of pension amount and interest on bank account. The order was subjected to appeal before first appellate authority wherein Ld. CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee. The deduction claimed u/s 54EC was confirmed and deduction claimed u/s 54F was partly allowed. The order attained finality by dismissal of further appeals by assessee as well as by department vide Tribunal s orders. Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt that mere making of wrong claim do not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of finding that any details supplied by the assessee is incorrect or false, penalty could not be levied. The Ld. AO must prove that there was concealment of income or the return of income furnished by the assessee or documents submitted by assessee were based on incorrect fact, falsity and untruth. Therefore, it is not a fit case for imposition of penalty. The other two additions are small additions which, in any way, is not a fit case for levy of penalty considering the fact that the assessee is a senior citizen and may have missed out to compute pension and interest correctly. Therefore, we by deleting the impugned penalty, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
