9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: Issue 1: Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 In this appeal, the Revenue challenged the deletion of a penalty of Rs. 27,30,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved Mrs. Chandrika B. Shah, the legal heir of late Shri Bharat L. Shah, who had received Rs. 1,30,00,000/- against surrender of tenancy rights. The fair market value as on 1.4.1981 was taken at Rs. 20,60,400/-, and after indexation, the indexed value was Rs. 92,09,988/-, resulting in declared long-term capital gains of Rs. 37,90,012/-. The claim was based on the acquisition of tenancy rights by a partnership firm, M/s. Elrex Corporation, in which late Shri Bharat L. Shah was a partner. The firm dissolved in 1979, and the business continued as a proprietary concern by Shri Bharat L. Shah. The claim was rejected during assessment due to the absence of dissolution documents, and the acquisition cost was taken as 'NIL'. During penalty proceedings, similar contentions were raised and rejected by the Assessing Officer. On appeal, the CIT(A) sought a remand report, which confirmed the partnership firm's acquisition of tenancy rights and its dissolution in 1979. However, the absence of the Dissolution Deed led to the rejection of the claim. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, stating that the claim could not be equated with concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars, especially considering the legal heir's inability to produce documents due to the death of Shri Bharat L. Shah. The CIT(A) referenced several judgments, including CIT v. Nath Brothers Exim International Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 670 and CIT v. Caplin Point Lab. Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 524, which held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where facts are disclosed but the claim is wrongly made or based on different interpretations. The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and relevant material, noting that the claim regarding acquisition of tenancy rights was partly accepted by the Assessing Officer in the remand report. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a bona fide belief that the acquisition cost could be taken at fair market value as on 1st April 1981, as per section 55(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal also referenced the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158), which stated that making an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the deletion of the penalty, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 7th day of May, 2010.
|
