Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1417 - ITAT CHENNAIPenalty levied in 271(1)(c) - assessee claimed the foreign payment as the compensation for cancellation of a contract and is a capital receipt. Whereas the Assessing Officer relied on the judicial decisions treated the receipt as the revenue receipt u/s. 28(v)(a) - Held that:- We found that the Assessing Officer in penalty proceedings relied mainly on the Assessment Order and is of the opinion that the assessee has disclosed inaccurate particulars while filing the Return of income. Further, we found the issue is not clear and debatable and the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has admitted the case. Considering the above facts and there is no lapse on the part of the assessee in filing the Return of income and the disputed issue of sharing success bonus is debatable to treat as capital or revenue and co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's husband case penalty issue [2015 (6) TMI 1129 - ITAT CHENNAI] wherein held that there is debtability on this issue. It is also undisputed fact that the Hon'ble High Court has admitted the appeal and the same is pending for final adjudication. Considering all these undisputed facts, we find no default in disclosure of information in the return of income by the assessee. Debatability is evident as narrated by the ld. Counsel for the assessee before us. On the other hand, the Revenue failed to prove the absence of debatability on the issue. Considering the overall factual matters of the case, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case for levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.
|