Case Law Details
Smt. Gaytri Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
Conclusion: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be levied as assessee had proved that there was a reasonable cause for making the wrong claim under section 54 instead of section 54F.
Held: Assessee has disclosed sale of building transaction in the return of income and then claimed the deduction U/s 54 as assessee also purchased a new residential house. AO noted that the capital asset sold by assessee was a shop allotted by JDA and therefore, the deduction U/s 54 was not available to assessee. Assessee revised its mistake of claiming deduction U/s 54 instead of section 54F. AO had allowed the claim of deduction U/s 54F. Due to the difference of computation of the deduction under two provisions i.e. 54 & 54F a lesser amount of claim of deduction which was allowed U/s 54F instead of Section 54 and consequently, AO made an addition. There was a bonafide and inadvertent mistake and omission on the part of assessee to claim deduction U/s 54 instead of section 54F. Therefore, assessee had explained the reasons for making a wrong claim and the facts explained by assessee were duly established from the record and found to be true then even if the addition was made by AO due to the claim made under wrong provisions of the Act. It would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. Accordingly, once the assessee had proved that there was a reasonable cause for making the claim of section 54 instead of section 54F then the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) could not be imposed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.11.2017 of ld. CIT (A), Jaipur arising from penalty order passed U/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act for A.Y. 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
