TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 - Chitra Venkataraman And K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. N. V. Balaji Standing Counsel for Income Tax For the Respondent : Mr. R. Sivaraman ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Chitra Venkataraman,J.) The Revenue contests the calculation of levy of penalty. This Tax Case Appeal, relating to the assessment year 2000-2001, was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c)? " The Revenue seeks to support the levy of penalty, particularly on the issue relating to the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the decision of this Court in the assessee's own case in T.C.(A) Nos.141 and 213 of 2004 and batch cases by order dated 30.09.2012. Going by the integrated scheme of the chit transaction spread over a period of time and in the context of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, this Court held that there could be no certainty as regards the receipt of dividend paid to the company and the same could be properly accounted only at the completion of the transaction and hence, completed contract method alone could be the basis for assessing the income. This Court pointed out that while there might be a certainty as to the dividend received every month for considering the same for assessment and on accrual basis at the hands of the subscriber, ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly in the context of the assessee giving up the principle of mutuality, calls for levy of penalty. 5. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, particularly in the context of the discussion on the role of a foreman and the acceptance of the case on the dividend under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Thus, going by the reasoning given in the order dated 30.09.2012 in T.C.(A) Nos.141 and 213 of 2004 and batch cases that, on the mere fact that the assessee had given up the plea of mutuality, one cannot immediately draw an inference that the assessee was lacking in bona fides in the matter of its claim. 6. In similar situation, in the decision reported in [2010] 327 ITR 510 (Del.) ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
