2006 (9) TMI 136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "B", in I.T.A. No. 1555/Delhi of 2005 relevant for the assessment year 1996-97. The only question that has arisen in this case is whether the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1(B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Learned counsel for the Revenue has taken us through the relevant provision and it appears on a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(baa) of the Explanation to section 80HHC(4C). In his return, in the computation of income a note was given by the assessee which read as follows: "Dividend Rs. 14,11,930 (UTI)- Rs. 14,10,474 and shares Rs. 1,456) and interest Rs. 15,15,808 (FDRs Rs. 9,89,062, inter-corporation deposit Rs. 57,269, certificate of deposit with banks Rs. 4,46,977, Bank of Baroda Bonds Rs. 1,619, Income-tax Departm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Assessing Officer was not satisfied and did not agree with the assessee but that by itself is not a ground to invoke the penalty provision of the statute. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon CIT v. Vidyagauri Natverlal [1999] 238 ITR 91 (Guj). In that case the question that arose was of unexplained cash credit. The Gujarat High Court made a distinction between a wrong claim as oppo....