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

....he Respondent by : Shri Virendra 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 take....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e head `Income from house property'. 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 Rs. 33,66,864. No relief was allowed in the first appeal. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on recor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enalty notwithstanding the 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 fur....