Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 41 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTPenalty under section 271(1)(c) - recovering full amount of penalty - Held that:- As against quantum addition, the petitioner has already appealed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has granted stay against recovery on the condition of depositing 50% of tax dues. The appeal against quantum addition is ripe for hearing before the Tribunal. Quite apart from these developments, it is hugely doubtful whether this would be a case for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is imposable on the assessee furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income or concealing the particulars of income. The fact that the petitioner as a statutory authority is engaged in implementing town planning schemes and in developing of Ahmedabad urban area is well known to the department and all concerns. Whether such activity is a charitable activity and would qualify for exemption under section 12A of the Act and consequently the income from such activity would be exempted from tax under section 2(15) of the Act, is only a matter of interpretation. Even post amendment with effect from 1.4.2009, the petitioner's claim for exemption would be eligible or not, is purely a question of law. We fail to see what could be the omission on part of the assessee to disclose inaccurate particulars of the income or conceal the particulars of income in the present case so as to invite penalty. Facts would have to be viewed in light of ratio of decision in case of Commissioner of Incometax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd reported in (22010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT). On such prima facie consideration, it is directed that pending the petitioner's appeal against the order of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer, there shall be no coercive recovery of such penalty demand
|