https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773976 ITAT Delhi held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for claiming deduction under Section 54F was not sustainable. The assessee had provided explanation with documentary evidence supporting the deduction claim, which was later surrendered due to builder's inability to complete construction. The Tribunal established that it cannot travel beyond facts recorded in lower authority orders or introduce new facts from external sources like Google searches without confronting the assessee. CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty was upheld as the assessee's explanation was bonafide and supported by evidence, distinguishing it from cases requiring penalty imposition for concealment. en-us Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jun 2025 15:03:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773976 ITAT Delhi held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for claiming deduction under Section 54F was not sustainable. The assessee had provided explanation with documentary evidence supporting the deduction claim, which was later surrendered due to builder's inability to complete construction. The Tribunal established that it cannot travel beyond facts recorded in lower authority orders or introduce new facts from external sources like Google searches without confronting the assessee. CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty was upheld as the assessee's explanation was bonafide and supported by evidence, distinguishing it from cases requiring penalty imposition for concealment. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773976