TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 476
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-21 has erred in confirming the order of Assessing officer, imposing penalty of Rs. 9,28,086 under section 271(1)(c) of Income tax Act, unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law stating that the Appellant has concealed the particulars of his income whereas the income finally assessed by Ld. AO is the same as has been declared by the appellant i.e. Rs. 30,03,517 in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Income tax Act. It is submitted that: 1.1 The Ld. AO issued the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) on 5.10.2018 which has been responded by the appellant vide its letter dated 21.11.2018. The Ld. AO further issued notice on 24.02.2020 (whereas Ld. AO mentioned the date in his order dtd. 24.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f income for the A.Y 2011-12 on 29.09.2011 disclosing a total income of Rs. 78,378/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 25.03.2015 assessing the total income of Rs. 54,09,300/-, where the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act of Rs. 27,27,821/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (A.O) found that the assessee has violated the conditions of provisions of Sec. 80IB(10)(e) & (f) of the Act and has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice under Section 148 of the Act and also notice under Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal. In the penalty proceedings in lieu of notice issued, the assessee has submitted explanations on 21.11.2018 and 29.02.2020. Whereas the AO was not satisfied with the explanations and information and observed that the assessee has concealed income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levied penalty of Rs. 9,28,086/- and passed the order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 25.03.2022. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and finding of the Assessing Officer in penalty proceedings but has confirmed the action of A.O in levying the penalty and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was levied. The Ld. AR has demonstrated the Order Giving Effect (OGE) to the CIT(A) order dated 1.10.2018 placed at Page 50 of the paper book. The Ld. AR emphasized that the assessee has claimed the similar deduction u/sec 80IB(10) of the Act in the A.Y. 2012-13 & A.Y. 2014-15 and on the similar grounds the relief was granted and no penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the Ld.AR demonstrated the details in the paper book-II. Since the facts of the present case are similar to the earlier years hence the penalty cannot be levied. Further the Ld. AR referred to the assessment order u/sec 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y 2014-15 on similar disallowance u/sec 80(IB)(10) of the Act and on further appeal, the CIT(A) relied on the order of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be sold to one person/individual whether merely because assessee had violated conditions of section 80IB(10) (f) in respect of three flats, deduction u/s. 80IB(10) could not be disallowed for entire housing project and, assessee was entitled to deduction proportionately in respect of flats which fulfilled all conditions of section 80IB(10) - Held, yes (Para 8) [in favour of assessee]" The appellant has also filed revised return of income on 09.05.2017, declaring income of Rs. 30,03,517/- by proportionately disallowing the claim of deduction in case where more than one flat was sold to an Individual/entity as against the original returned Income of Rs. 78,378/-filed on 29.09.2011. 5.3 On similar issue, the undersigned had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13] 359 ITR 564 (Kar). Further the assessee has made a claim under the bonafide belief that it is allowable under the law. We also rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroleum Products Ltd., 322 ITR 158(SC) and the observations are read as under: "271(1) If the A.O or the commissioner (Appeals) or the commissioner in the course of any proceedings under the Act, is satisfied that any person (c) has concealed the particular of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. A glance at his provision would suggest that in order to be covered there has to be concealment of the particular of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inacc....