TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 807
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....condonation petition, duly supported by affidavit, the assessee has stated as under :- "i. That my professional work related to Income Tax was handled by Late Sh. Devendra Chordia, who unfortunately expired on 24/06/2016. ii. That I had engaged Late Sh. Devendra Chordia to represent before CIT (Appeals)-12, New Delhi in appeal no. 123/15-16/1230/12-13 for A.Y. 2009-10 in respect of matter pertaining to imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. iii. That when hearings were called for Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) - 12, my counsel Sh. Devendra Chordia, who was supposed to attend, got expired, which led to representations by one Sh. Sunil Kumar as stated in the order dated 30.11.2015 issued by CIT (Appeals) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....landlord as to receipt of the house rent. The AR of the assessee could not furnish any of the documentary evidence in support of claim of deduction on account of HRA amounting to Rs. 8,68,404/-. On further investigation and enquiry it was found that assessee has not incurred any expenditure on account of HRA. The AR of the assessee Shri M.L. Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant, furnish a revised computation of income along with the letter dated 08.11.2011 wherein he added the amount of Rs. 8,68,404/- to returned income of assessee. As the assessee has deliberately furnished the wrong and incorrect particulars of his income regarding claim of deductions on account of HRA hence penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the I.T. Act, are also initiated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld AO has not mentioned exact limb in which penalty is levied in impugned penalty order; 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT-A - 12 New Delhi erred in confirming penalty amounting to Rs. 3,20,895/- u/s 271(1)(c) without appreciating the reply dated 15/05/2012 but also valid explanation was tendered before Ld AO that inadvertently said claim was made and was promptly revised voluntarily during assessment by filing of revised computation; 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT-A - 12 New Delhi erred in confirming penalty amounting to Rs. 3,20,895/- u/s 271(1)(c) where present case is covered by Apex court verdict in PWC case 348 ITR 206 & Suresh ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s some conduct on part of the assessee which would show that the assessee consciously intended to hide his income." 9. On merits of the addition made, ld. counsel referred to pages 26 and 27 of appeal set, wherein, the assessee's reply before the Assessing Officer in response to notice u/s 271(1)(c) is contained, wherein, it is, inter-alia, stated as under :- "3. The assessee while filing his return claimed HRA amounting to Rs. 8,68,404/- as per Form No.16 issued by his employer. Exemption part of HRA was calculated on the basis of rent payable to his mother Sushila Sood for using her house D-54, Anand Niketan, New Delhi. 4. In the questionnaire dt. 11.10.2011 issued alongwith notice u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... furnished inaccurate particulars of income for which penalty had been levied. 12. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record of the case. As far as ld. counsel's plea regarding notice u/s 274 being vague is concerned, I am not inclined to accept the same for the simple reason that notice u/s 274 cannot be read de-hors the assessment order. From reading of the assessment order, if it is evident that under which particular limb of section 271(1)(c), the penalty has been initiated then merely because in the notice u/s 274 the Assessing Officer does not specify the specific limb of section 271(1)(c), it cannot be concluded that the Assessing Officer failed to pinpoint the actual limb in which said penalty w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the rent was payable. Therefore, at best, it can be said to be a wrong claim in view of Explanation B to section 10(13A) but that does not imply that the assessee furnished any inaccurate particulars of its income. The amount was payable to mother and not to any outsider. This goes to show assessee's bona-fide. I, therefore, do not find any reason to saddle the assessee with penalty on account of claim of deduction of HRA made in the original return, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroporducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), wherein, it has been held as under :- ".....In order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penal....