TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 490
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,56,03,240/-. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 10.06.2009 at total income of Rs. 1,81,19,750/-. In this assessment, the claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs. 18,25,166/- u/s 80RRA of the Act was denied. It is mentioned that this deduction was claimed from consultancy fees of Rs. 1,21,67,777/- received from Geneva. Such deduction is not admissible for this year as the provision was deleted with effect from 01.04.2005. In other words, the deduction was admissible for and up to assessment year 2004-05 and not thereafter. This part of the order has been accepted by the assessee. Penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that the assessment proceedings were completed on 29.05.2009 by the As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 322 and it was argued that since all the facts had been disclosed, the penalty was not leviable. The ld. CIT (Appeals) considered the facts of the case and submissions made before him. It is mentioned in the impugned order that the AO has not found the explanation of the assessee to be not bona-fide. All facts material to computation of income had been disclosed. The decision in the case of Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277/174 Taxman 571 (SC) has been considered by the same court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (supra) Relying on the latter decision, the penalty was deleted. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., but a case of false claim. 3.1 In reply, the ld. counsel referred to the note sheet that the case was discussed on 28.05.2009 and closed. Thereafter, the representative of the assessee went to the office and filed a letter dated 29.05.2009 withdrawing the claim as he did not want the revenue to suffer on account of a wrong claim made by the assessee on his advice. In this connection, an affidavit dated 05.10.2011 has also been filed from Shri I.M. Sansi, the counsel, to the effect that under bona fide belief that the provisions of section 80RRA are applicable to the assessee, Shri Govind Ambady, even for assessment year 2007-08, he was advised accordingly. The error of judgment was realized later on and thereafter he was asked to withd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled now, there is no evidence of any advice rendered by the counsel. With a view to test the truthfulness of the explanation, statement of income for assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 were also called for by the bench. It is seen that the deduction had not been claimed in assessment year 2004-05. The deduction was also not claimed in assessment year 2005-06 as he received salaries from two sources amounting to Rs. 42,27,000/- and Rs. 13,08,900/-. The name of ABW, Geneva appears in respect of one source of salary. The deduction was claimed at Rs. 1,69,913/- in assessment year 2006-07 although the same was not admissible to the assessee for this year also. It is not explained as to what happened to the claim made in assessment year 2006-07....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount of Rs. 7,31,419/- representing net miscellaneous income by holding that this amount does not represent income from housing development activities. The facts of the case are distinguishable as the assessee was entitled to the deduction in the first place and it was only a question regarding various components of income on which the deduction could be claimed. On the other hand, in the case of CIT v. Gurbachan Lal [2001] 250 ITR 157/116 Taxman 138 (Delhi), it has been held that the initial burden of discharging the onus under Explanation-1 is on the assessee, which automatically comes into operation where the explanation offered is found to be false by the Assessing Officer. The ratio of this case is clearly applicable to the facts of ....