ITA No. 590/Hyd/11 (Asstt. Year 2006-07). Case: Income-tax Officer Vs Smt. Kancherla Sujani. ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | ITA No. 590/Hyd/11 (Asstt. Year 2006-07) |
| Judges | G.C.Gupta, Vice President and Akber Basha, A.M. |
| Issue | Income Tax Act |
| Judgement Date | July 22, 2011 |
| Court | ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
G.C. Gupta, Vice President, (ITAT Hyderabad 'B' Bench)
-
This appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals).
-
The only issue in this appeal of the Revenue is regarding validity of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
The Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as it had deposited the sale proceeds in fixed deposit with the bank and not in the capital gains deposit scheme notified for the purpose. He submitted that the Assessee is not entitled to any exemption under Section 54 of the Act and therefore, the Assessee was guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was justified.
-
Learned Counsel for the Assessee has opposed the submissions of the Learned Departmental Representative. He submitted that the ITA No. 590/Hyd/11 Smt. Kancharla Sujani, Hyderabad 2 Assessee has not concealed any material facts relevant for its assessment before the assessing officer. The Assessee has invested the capital gains in fixed deposits instead of in capital gains deposit scheme with the bank, due to lack of knowledge of the relevant provisions of law. He submitted that there was no material brought on record on behalf of the Revenue to suggest that there was any mala fide intention of the Assessee for claiming the deduction under Section 54. He relied on the order of the CIT(A).
-
We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the Assessee has deposited the capital gains amount in a fixed deposit with Andhra Bank for constructing a residential house and claimed deduction under Section 54 of the Act. The case of the Assessee was that it was not aware of the provisions that the capital gains amount should have been deposited in capital gains deposit scheme instead of a fixed deposit account with the bank and the mistake was bona fide, and due to lack of knowledge of the relevant provisions of law. For this bona fide mistake, Assessee has suffered denial of its...
To continue reading
Request your trial