Case Law Details
ITO Vs Ashif Mehbbobelahi Rushnaiwala (ITAT Ahmedabad)
CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied on the disallowance of exemption u/s 54F of the Act noting that the assessee had furnished all particulars relating to the claim of exemption by way of investment in residential properties, that the claim was made under the boanfide belief that all investment would be made within the period specified but could not be done so for reasons beyond his control as the construction was not completed in time and noting that on the requirement of investment in capital gains account scheme there was a judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka high court holding the requirement to be merely procedural and directory in nature. The Ld.CIT(A) accordingly deleted the penalty on the ground that all particulars with respect to the claim having been truly furnished ,mere disallowance of claim in law would not tantamount to charging the assessee with concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
We are entirely in agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and find no infirmity in the same.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad, (in short referred to as CIT(A)), dated 21-02-2020, u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2011-12 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
