Ramprasad Kamtaprasad Nigam v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Court: Mumbai Tribunal
Head Notes:

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment -Disallowance of claim under section 54 of the Act-Levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 54]
The assessee made an investment in SRA project and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act . The claim was disallowed and the assessee has not filed an appeal against the disallowance. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing in accurate particulars of income. The order of the Assessing Officer is affirmed by the CIT(A). On appeal the Tribunal relying on the ratio in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) held that the appellant had infact disclosed the amount of capital gains and only aspect is that the claim for exemption was disallowed which cannot lead to an order of imposition of penalty. Accordingly the penalty levied was deleted. (ITA NO. 2839/MUM/2023 dt. 12-12 -2023) (AY. 2015 -16)
Ramprasad Kamtaprasad Nigam v. ITO ( Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org.
[Coram : Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) Shri C. V. Bhadang, President and Hon’ble Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M.]

Law:
Section(s): 271(1)(c
Counsel(s): Shri Mandar Vaidya, Advocate
Dowload Pdf File Click here to download the file in pdf format
Uploaded By itatonline
Date of upload: January 11, 2024

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*