2010 (4) TMI 1150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ra Ojha ORDER Per R.S.Syal, AM : These two appeals by the assessee arise out of the orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on 13.5.2008 in relation to the assessment years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 sustaining penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are common and identical grounds have been taken, we are, therefore, proceeding ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....operty'. He, therefore, did not allow deduction for expenses and allowance but allowed deduction u/s.24 of the Act. This resulted into enhancement of income on which the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) amounting to ₹ 33,66,864. No relief was allowed in the first appeal. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is noted that the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... fact the action of the AO may have been upheld in quantum proceedings. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [(2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)] has held that mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself will not attract penalty u/s.271(1)(c). The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that when the assessee furnished all the material in....