Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. The captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane and arise out of the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the ‘Act’). As common issues are involved, we are proceeding to dispose them off through a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
Salasar Developers 2 to 3604/Mum/2016 2. The ground raised by the Revenue in these appeals are against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee-firm, a builder and developer, claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) during the impugned assessment years. The AO rejected the claim of deduction made by the assessee by concluding that the stipulations contained in section 80IB(10) were not fulfilled. Then he levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the assessee for wrongly claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). After examining the case, the Ld. CIT(A) held “10. From the detailed facts discussed above, it is seen that the appellant had made a bonafide claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act and partial disallowance of the same was made on difference of opinion or non- fulfillment of the prescribed condition. So long as complete facts had been disclosed by the appellant, it cannot amount to either concealment of particulars of Income for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. Therefore, following my predecessor’s order dated 14.06.2012 as reproduced above and relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC), it is held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act could not have been levied in this case. Therefore, penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act in appellant’s case for all the four years is directed to be deleted.”
5. Before us, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the AO. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and also the order of the ITAT ‘E’ Bench Mumbai in assessee’s own case for the AY 2004-05 to 2006-07.