1998 (5) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... income: "Deduction under s. 80T is claimed on total capital gain (long-term) amounting to Rs. 2,19,984 in view of various judicial pronouncements viz., CIT vs. V. Venkatachalam (1979) 12 CTR (Mad) 362 : (1979) 120 ITR 688 (Mad) and CIT vs. K.A.L.K.R. Ramaswami Chettiar (1979) 120 ITR 694 (Mad)." The learned AO in his assessment order under s. 143(3) reduced the assessee's claim for deduction under s. 80T on the ground that the decisions relied upon by the assessee were no longer good law since Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980 had inserted ss. 80AA and 80AB w.e.f. asst. yr. 1981-82, according to which the deduction under s. 80T was required to be calculated with reference to the net income under the head 'Capital gain'. In the present case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 271(1)(c) were clearly applicable. 4. Shri Mukesh M. Patel, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that there was no justification for the impugned penalty. He invited our special attention to para 5 of the penalty order under s. 271(1)(c) where the learned AO has levied the penalty for concealment of particulars of income. He further submitted that in view of the fact that the assessee had placed a clear note in the statement of total income showed that he had bona fidely relied on the two Court decisions to support his claim and accordingly it cannot be said that the assessee had concealed any particulars of income. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, the assessee was under the bona fide belief that the ratio of the....