TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nting to Rs. 2,19,984 in view of various judicial pronouncements viz., CIT vs. V. Venkatachalam (1979) 12 CTR (Mad) 362 : (1979) 120 ITR 688 (Mad) and CIT vs. K.A.L.K.R. Ramaswami Chettiar (1979) 120 ITR 694 (Mad)." The learned AO in his assessment order under s. 143(3) reduced the assessee's claim for deduction under s. 80T on the ground that the decisions relied upon by the assessee were no longer good law since Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980 had inserted ss. 80AA and 80AB w.e.f. asst. yr. 1981-82, according to which the deduction under s. 80T was required to be calculated with reference to the net income under the head 'Capital gain'. In the present case, according to the AO the gross long-term capital gain of Rs. 2,19,984 was required t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessee, submitted that there was no justification for the impugned penalty. He invited our special attention to para 5 of the penalty order under s. 271(1)(c) where the learned AO has levied the penalty for concealment of particulars of income. He further submitted that in view of the fact that the assessee had placed a clear note in the statement of total income showed that he had bona fidely relied on the two Court decisions to support his claim and accordingly it cannot be said that the assessee had concealed any particulars of income. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, the assessee was under the bona fide belief that the ratio of the said Madras High Court judgments duly covered his case. Merely because the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see and he rightly did so in the assessment order under s. 143(3) but there is no justification for levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of particulars of income. In Cement Marketing Co. of India vs. Addl. CIT the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "Return cannot be said to be 'false' unless there is element of deliberateness in it. Where the assessee does not include a particular item under the bona fide belief that he is not liable to do so, it would not be right to condemn the return as a 'false' return inviting imposition of penalty. Until the filing of inaccurate return is accompanied by guilty mind, the section cannot be invoked for imposing the penalty." In CIT vs. Anand Water Meter Mfg. Co. the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
