TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contrary to the facts and evidence on record and hence, it should be deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that, there is no concealment of any income and hence the penalty levied be cancelled. 3. The learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that, the appellant had disclose true and correct details of its claim and there is no concealment of the same. 4. The appellant prays that, the claim of deduction made u/s.80 IB (10) was on technical ground rejected and hence, the penalty levied be cancelled. 3. Brief facts leading to the levy of penalty are as under:- 2. The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of redevelopment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Tribunal. Both AO and CIT(A) had disallowed deduction u/s 80IB(10) solely on violation of proviso to Section 80IB(10)(b). The deduction claimed was only under professional guidance of the auditor who are specialized in the taxation laws. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. in support of his view that a mere claim of deduction does not tantamount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant has also filed a copy of the aforesaid judgement along with written opinion, tax audit report and order of CIT(A). 5. Ld.CIT(A) proceeded to confirm the penalty by elaborately dealing with the merit of the addition. He has held as under:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or slum re-development housing projects by waiving the requirement of minimum plot area of 1 acre which is applicable in general cases. As the language of section 80IB are clear and unambiguous, there is no doubt that the claim of the appellant made u/s 8016(10) were without any justification whatsoever and without any bona fide reasons. The claim of the appellant was patently wrong and inadmissible. This is not a case where conflicting decisions of various High Courts were available on the date of filing of return. In fact, the decision of Vandana Properties is also subsequent to filing return on 14.10.2010. 5.3. Apart from that I find that the reliance of the appellant in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. in 322 ITR 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue. However, in the instant case, the AO has clearly given the findings that the claim of the deduction u/s 80IB made in the return of income was incorrect or false. The focus of the AR of the appellant on the phrase used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court - "A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assesses".- cannot be read in isolation. In the instant case, during the assessment as well as the penalty proceedings, it was brought on record that the appellant had made the false claim which was not admissible in law. Hence, it will tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in the return of income filed by the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 80IB. It is not the case that assessee's claim was exfacie bogus. As a mater of fact, the Ld.CIT(A) in dealing with the penalty order has distinguished the assessee's reliance upon Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Vandana Property(supra) by holding that assessee is picking lines from the above Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision. After having held so Ld.CIT(A) has misled himself in distinguishing the assessee's reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts. In the said case Hon'ble Supreme Court has expounded that mere denial of an assessee's claim cannot fasten upon the assessee liability of penalty u.s 271(1)(c), unless the assessee's claim is found to be ex-fac....