Case Law Details
CIT Vs D. Harindran (Madras High Court)
The learned Appellate Tribunal held that the respondent assessee had furnished all details of sale and purchase of the Injambakkam property and had claimed deduction under Section 54/54F of the 1961 Act. After careful perusal and analysis of Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act, the Appellate Tribunal found, on facts, that it could not be said that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or he concealed any part of income. The Appellate Tribunal held that the respondent assessee had furnished details of the transactions relating to the Injambakkam property and the sale of the Injambakkam property for Rs.4,00,00,000/- had been disclosed.
The Appellate Tribunal observed that the respondent assessee had computed the capital gain and disclosed the capital gain, but claimed exemption under Section 54/54F for investment in another land and property, which, according to the assessee, was a residential house. The Revenue claimed that the reinvestment was in agricultural land and not residential house. It was not the case of the Assessing Officer that the respondent assessee had concealed any part of the sale proceedings and thereby concealed the capital gain that had accrued to him. Making of a statutory claim under Section 54/54F of the 1961 Act could not be said to be concealment of particulars of income.
Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 the learned Appellate Tribunal held that unless the case is strictly covered by the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act, penalty provision cannot be invoked. Making of an incorrect claim in law would not tantamount to inaccurate particulars. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of this Court in CIT v. Gem Granites [2014] (Mad).
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
