TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 1961(In short the 'Act') dated 03.03.2016 framed by ACIT(Central)- II, Bhopal. 2. As the issues raised in all the appeals relates to the legality and quantum of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, these were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience. 3. Common grounds are raised in all these 3 appeals. For sake of adjudication we mention the grounds raised for Assessment Year 2004-05 which also includes the additional ground raised by the assessee vide application dated 14.8.2018. "1. a. On CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty when show cause notice I assessment order does not explicitly mentioned the limb 271(1)lc) of the Act Le. whether it 1S for furnishing inaccurate parti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings u/s 271(1)(c) have been held to be void ab initio by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs Kulwant Singh Bhatia ITA No.9/2018 order dated 9.5.2018. 5. As regards the merits for levy of penalty, reliance was placed on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V Surabhi Homes Pvt.Ltd ITA No.68-69/2016 order dated 21.03.2017 wherein the Hon'ble Court confirmed the finding of the Tribunal holding that no penalty should have been levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as no incorrect declaration has been filed by the assessee and the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act was claimed on the basis of a project approval certificate. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is less. In the case of assessee the commercial constructed area measuring 2254 sq.ft was sold and the assessee after claiming the benefit under section 80IB(10) for the 2000 Sq.ft area offered for income the remaining area measuring 254 sq.ft for profits. In other words assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act only for 2000 sq.ft area. However, Ld. A.O took a view that as the assessee has exceeded the statutory limit of area provided in the provision of 80IB(10) it is not eligible to any deduction u/s 80IB as it has violated one of the conditions. Ld. A.O therefore concluded the assessment denying the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act and also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the alleged d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d (supra) which also deals with the similar issue of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the wrong claim of the deduction u/s80IB(10) of the Act. "The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ). The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee of such deduction under section 80IB(1O) of the Act, for the reason that-the assessee does not satisfy the conditions to avail the benefit in the orders of assessment-passed on 30.12.2008 and 17.12.2009. 'The Assessing Officer also ordered for initiating penalty proceedings after disallowing the deduction claimed for concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In pursuance to such an ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee is liable for penalty. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and find that no question of law arises for consideration in the present appeals. Such facts have been taken into consideration by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), wherein the Commissioner has recorded the finding referred In the present case, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has produced an a invalid project approval certificate . The invalidity was in respect of automatic cancellation of the permission to raise construction of building. Another ground for imposition of penalty was that possession was given to the allottees before obtaining the a completion certificates which is said to be in gross violation of condition NO.....