https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450131 The ITAT Hyderabad ruled in favor of the assessee in a penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c). The assessee initially claimed lease rent income as business income with depreciation, then revised it to house property income claiming 30% standard deduction. The AO treated it as business income and imposed penalty. The Tribunal held the penalty order dated 01/04/2022 was time-barred under section 275, as it exceeded the prescribed limitation period. Additionally, the AO became functus officio after passing the first penalty order within the statutory timeframe. The Tribunal emphasized that law doesn't prohibit making plausible claims during assessment proceedings, and penalty cannot be imposed merely because a claim was unacceptable to Revenue without satisfying twin requirements under section 271(1)(c). The penalty was deleted. en-us Mon, 26 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450131 The ITAT Hyderabad ruled in favor of the assessee in a penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c). The assessee initially claimed lease rent income as business income with depreciation, then revised it to house property income claiming 30% standard deduction. The AO treated it as business income and imposed penalty. The Tribunal held the penalty order dated 01/04/2022 was time-barred under section 275, as it exceeded the prescribed limitation period. Additionally, the AO became functus officio after passing the first penalty order within the statutory timeframe. The Tribunal emphasized that law doesn't prohibit making plausible claims during assessment proceedings, and penalty cannot be imposed merely because a claim was unacceptable to Revenue without satisfying twin requirements under section 271(1)(c). The penalty was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 26 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450131