TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Facts in brief:- A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 29th September 2011, in assessee's case. The assessee for the assessment year under consideration filed return of income on 30th September 2009, declaring total income of Rs. 6,78,84,609. A return u/s 153A was also filed 22nd September 2019, showing nil income after claiming deduction of Rs. 6,78,84,610. The Assessing Officer completed assessment on 28th March 2014, under section 143(3) r/w section 154A determining total income of Rs. 6,78,84,610, observing that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10). Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made various additions which subsequently result....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls) are reproduced below:- "9. Further, the reason for not claiming deduction in the original return filed, as indicated above, appears to be a satisfactory explanation and therefore, the appellants attempt to claim the said deduction u/s 153A return for assessment year 2009-10 cannot be held against him for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income. Moreover because all the details have been submitted by the appellant in its return of income, both u/s 139(1) and u/s 153A. 10. The apex court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt Ltd 322 hR 158 (SC) 2010 have held that mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount/ Computation of income nor paid taxes in respect of the above undisclosed income does not bear out from the facts of the case and hence, is held to be misplaced. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the AO on account of concealment of particulars of income is directed to be deleted." 4. Since the quantum addition was deleted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), consequently, the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer became infructuous. Therefore, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. The Revenue, being not satisfied with the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), carried the issue of deletion of penalty before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aned Counsel for the assessee on the other hand relied upon the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and prayed for upholding the same. 7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. As it appears from the relevant material available before us that the assessee had derived profit from the project named Shreeji Heights. We notice that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessee did not make the said claim in the return of income since the assessee was under mistaken understanding of the law that since it has constructed commercial units, it cannot claim benefit under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Further the learned Commissioner (Appeals) noticed that the assessee's housing project w....