Case Law Details
Shri Pradipta Kumar Das Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai)
Assessee was diagnosed with Cancer in December, 2017 and the ld. CIT(A) passed the order on 20.03.2018, which is subsequent to the diagnosis of the illness, needless to mention that treatment of cancer is very painful and it is not possible to focus on other issues when he was under the treatment and therefore in our opinion, there is a reasonable cause for not fling the appeal within the due period and therefore we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
No Penalty for Mere Disallowance of HRA Claim based on Consent of Appellant to Addition
perusal of the order passed u/s.271(1) (c) of the Act would suggest that penalty was levied for filing inaccurate particulars of income. But the fact remain that perusal of the assessment order would suggest that assessee had not filed any details whatsoever in support of claim of HRA. As regards to other addition of Rs. 45,951/-, order, it is clearly stated that assessee himself had agreed for the addition and therefore it cannot be said that the appellant had filed inaccurate particulars of income resulting an addition to the returned income. Therefore the very basis of levy of penalty has no legs to stand. Further, it is settled law that mere disallowance of claim does not entitle levy of penalty as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd, 322 ITR 158. Furthermore the employer had not disputed the claim for exemption of HRA. Therefore in the light of the above findings, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of T2,17,821/- made u/s.271(1) ( c) of the Act
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
