Case Law Details
ITO Vs Shri Kantilal G. Kotecha (ITAT Mumbai)
We find that with regard to claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act, this tribunal in quantum proceedings had granted deduction u/s 54 of the Act to the extent of payments made within the prescribed limitation period i.e payments made within one year prior to the date of transfer of original property. The ld AR argued that it was a bonafide belief on the part of the assessee that since the last payment for purchase of new house was made within the prescribed limitation period by the assessee i.e within one year prior to the date of transfer , he was entitled to claim deduction u/s 54 of the Act. However, this claim was partially negated by the order of this tribunal in quantum proceedings. But this does not mean, that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars. It is a genuine difference of opinion on the facts already available on record between the assessee and the ld AO. There was no detection by the ld AO on any fresh facts in this regard. All the details were already available with him on record. The assessee did not have any malafide intention to furnish any inaccurate particulars thereon. In fact, the ld AO was able to justify his rejection of claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act only from the details filed by the assessee with regard to the agreement entered for new house on 26.5.2006 and payments made thereon on various dates. Hence it is only a simple disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act by the ld AO. The findings given by us in respect of penalty on self-generated Goodwill herein above would hold good for this issue also and the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity herein. Accordingly, we hold that the ld CITA had rightly deleted the penalty in respect of this issue.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This appeal in ITA No.205/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2009-10 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17 in appeal No.CIT(A)-17/IT-124/14-15 dated 17/10/2017 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 30/11/2011 by the ld. Income Tax Officer-8(2)(4), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).
2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT A was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
