TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 984
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal." 2. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The assessee had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 31/03/2012, declaring a total income to the tune of Rs. 3,49,215/-. The assessment proceedings under provisions of section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed on 07/03/2014 and the total income of the assessee for the period under consideration was assessed to be Rs. 1,55,53,210/-. The assessee claimed deductions under section 54EC of the Act and under section 54F of the Act, which were denied by the assessing officer. The details of deductions claimed by the assessee are as follows: (i) Deduction under section 54EC of the Act Rs. 1,00,00,000 (ii) Deduction under section 54EC of the Act. Rs. 52,04,000 3. In order to claim deduction under section 54EC of the Act, the assessee had invested Rs. 1,50,00,000/- in specified bonds, the details of the investments are as follows: Date Amount (In Rs) Certificate No. 31.03.2010 50,00,000 00078462 28.02.2011 50,00,000 00091846 30.04.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee has failed to deposit such amount in the Capital Gain Account Scheme on or before the due date of filing his returned on income, but was deposited late on 02/02/2012. 6. The Assessing Officer also noted that the amount so deposited in the Capital Gain Account Scheme on 02/02/2012 was withdrawn by the assessee from the said capital account on 28/08/2012 and the assessee paid Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) on the said withdrawn amount in the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee was asked to furnish the explanation as to why the deduction so claimed u/s.54F of the Act should not be disallowed. Since, the Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee did not offer any explanation, therefore the Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee has not purchased any new residential house within the time frame allowed u/s.54F of the Act, therefore the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s.54F of the Act observing as follows: "Thus, the assessee has failed to follow the conditions laid down in section 54F of the Act and accordingly, the assessee is held. to be not eligible for the benefits of section 54F of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act and the penalty order framed by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, so far the charge/ accusation on the assessee is concerned. In the assessment order framed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 31/03/2011, the assessing officer has concluded stating that the 'assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income' whereas in the penalty order framed by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion stating that: 'this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." Thus, ld. Counsel explained the Bench that there is no definite (fix) charge on the assessee as to whether the assessee should be penalized for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" or "for concealment of income" therefore, on this account the penalty initiated by the assessee officer is bad in law and therefore the penalty so levied by the assessing officer should be cancelled. 10. On merits, the ld. Counsel submitted before us that first of all, the assessee has made a bona fide claim of deductions under section 54EC a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nafide explanation that he was under the bonafide belief supported by various judicial pronouncements by different courts/lTAT Benches that he was entitled to get deduction from Long Term Capital Gain on such investments made by him in Infrastructure Bonds u/s.54EC of the Act. Regarding the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act, the ld. Counsel explained the Bench that because assessee could not utilize the said amount for purchasing a 'new residential house' within the prescribed limit and therefore, the assessee had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 52,04,000/- on 29.08.2012 and offered the said amount as Long Term capital Gain (LTCG) in the subsequent year`s Return of Income filed for A.Y. 2013-14 as per the provision of section 54F(4] of the Act. Hence, ld. Counsel submits before us that there is no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee to defraud the revenue and hence no adverse inference could be drawn that the assessee had concealed any income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel finally submits that the penalty order is liable to be quashed on legal issue as well as on merit. 14. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....010 50,00,000/- 00078462 28.02.2011 50,00,000/- 00091846 30.04.2011 34,00,000/- 01200672 30.09.2011 16,00,000/- 01206329 16. During the assessment proceedings, the Id. AO allowed deduction of Rs. 50,00,000/- made in Bonds on 31.03.2010 (made prior to date of transfer) but disallowed the other claims amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- because investments were not made within 6 months from date of transfer which falls on 13.02.2011. However, the C1T(A) allowed claimed for deduction u/s.54EC against the investment of Rs. 50,00,000/- made on 28.02.2011 instead of Rs. 50,00,000/- made on 31.03.2010 (prior to the date of transfer). Accordingly, the amount of disallowance of claim of deduction u/s.54EC remained unchanged. Further, the ld. AO observed that the amount of Rs. 52,04,000/- was made in the specified Capital Gain Account beyond the stipulated time. The AO has levied penalty against both these wrong claims of deductions made u/s.54EC at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-and u/s.54F at Rs. 52,04,000/-. On appeal ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty imposed by the assessing officer. 17. We note that the first grievance of the ld. Counsel is that there is no any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer levied the penalty for both the limbs "for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act, whereas in the assessment order the assessing officer initiated penalty only on one limb that is "for furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income", . We note that Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of T Ashok Pai - 292 ITR 11 (SC) held that "concealment of income" and "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income" carry different connotations. The Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in case of Manu Engineering Works -122 ITR 306 (Guj.) held that the penalty order has to be clear as to limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Further, on the identical facts, Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in case of Nayan C. Shah vs. ITO [Tax Appeal No. 543 of 2012 (Guj- HC)] held. as follows: "11. Another notable aspect of the matter is that while the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, the Tribunal has set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by holding that the assessee has suppressed the actual particulars of income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifferent courts/lTAT Benches that he was entitled to get deduction from Long Term Capital Gain on such investments made by him in Infrastructure Bonds u/s.54EC of the Act. Regarding the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act, the ld. Counsel explained the Bench that because assessee could not utilize the said amount for purchasing a 'new residential house' within the prescribed limit and therefore, the assessee had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 52,04,000/- on 29.08.2012 and offered the said amount as Long Term capital Gain (LTCG) in the subsequent year`s Return of Income filed for A.Y. 2013-14 as per the provision of section 54F(4) of the Act. Hence, ld. Counsel submits before us that there is no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee to defraud the revenue and hence no adverse inference could be drawn that the assessee had concealed any income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 22. We note that the assessee has made a bona fide claim of deductions under section 54EC and under section 54F of the Act and it is not a false claim made by the assessee to deceive the revenue, therefore, the assessee`s case falls in the category of bona fide claim of deduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orrect statements made in the Return. However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assessee. This Court, therefore, observed: "So far as the question of penalty is concerned the items which were not included in the turnover were found incorporated in the appellant's account books. Where certain items which are not included in the turnover are disclosed in the dealer's own account books and the assessing authorities include these items in the dealer's turnover disallowing the exemption, penalty cannot be imposed. The penalty levied stands set aside." The situation in the present case is still better as no fault has been found with the particulars submitted by the assessee in its Return. 12. The Tribunal, as well as, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the High Court have correctly reached this conclusion and, therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue has no merits and is dismissed." 23. The judgment of the hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts(supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the assessee`s case under consideration. As the assessee has furnished all the particulars regarding claim o....