Case Law Details
PCIT Vs Rasiklal M. Parikh (Bombay High Court)
The Assessee had transferred the tenancy rights in a premises for consideration of Rs.1.67 Crores and claimed exemption of Rs.1.45 Crores under Section 54F of the investment in residential house. Such exemption was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. He also initiated penalty proceedings. The disallowance was confirmed up to the stage of the Tribunal upon which the Assessee had Appeal before the High Court, which was admitted. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.50 Lakhs. This was challenged by the Assessee before the CIT (A) and then the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned Judgment, deleted the penalty only on the ground that since the High Court has admitted the Assessee’s quantum Appeal, the issue is a debatable one. Thereupon, the Revenue has filed this Appeal.
The dispute between the Assessee and the Revenue was with reference to actual payment for purchase of the flat and whether when the Assessee had purchased one more flat, though contagious, could the Assessee claim exemption under Section 54F of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that this latter issue is covered by the decisions of High Court. It can thus be seen that the Assessee had made a bona fide claim. Neither any income nor any particulars of the income were concealed. As per the settled legal position, merely because a claim is rejected, it would not automatically give rise to penalty proceedings. Reference in this respect can be made to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
1. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue. Following substantial question is presented for our consideration :
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
