The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad Bench has held that mere disallowance of the claim under section 54F will not attract a penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer levieda penalty of Rs.2,92,210/- u/s.271(l)(c) of the Act, 1961 onthe assessee, Mr. Ashif Mehbbobelahialleging that the assessee having wrongly claimed capital gains, earned by it on a transaction of sale of property, as long-term capital gains and thereafter having claimed exemption of the same u/s. 54F of the Act by investing the long-term capital gains in a residential house. The aggrieved, assessee filed appeal against the order before CIT(A), which allowed the appeal and deleted the addition. Aggrieved, Revenue filed appeal before ITAT.
The revenue submitted that the long-term capital gain had been claimed on a depreciable business asset and was therefore likeshort-term capital gain as per section 50 of the Act and the assessee was not therefore entitled to exemption u/s. 54F of the Act which was allowed as per the law only on long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal observed that CIT(A) has rightly deleted the levy of penalty noting that the assesseehad furnished all particulars relating to the claim of exemption by way of investment in residential properties and that the claim was made under the bonafide 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.
The Coram Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member,and Shri TR Senthil Kumar, Judicial Memberhave held that mere disallowance of claim in law would not tantamount to charging the assessee withconcealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting penalty levied amounting to Rs.2,92,210/-.
Mr. Shri V.K. Singh and Mr. S L Poddarhave appeared for the appellant and respondent respectively.
コメント