9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 742 - HC - Income TaxPenalty under Section 271(1)(c) - Held that - The only ground urged before this Court by Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue is that the Assessee had deliberately claimed revenue receipt as capital receipt. Since that question was itself in dispute and put in issue in the assessment proceedings involving the Assessee, the Court finds no error whatsoever in the CIT (A) holding that there was no deliberate concealment of income or misrepresentation of the income as a capital receipt by the Assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Exemption applications 2. Appeals against ITAT order on arrears of rent and interest 3. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act Exemption Applications: The High Court allowed exemptions subject to all just exceptions and disposed of the applications. Appeals against ITAT Order: The Revenue filed appeals against the ITAT order dismissing appeals for assessment years 1989-90 to 1996-97. The case revolved around premises let out to the Ministry of Defence, with an arbitration award favoring the Assessee for rent and interest. The ITAT held the amount as a revenue receipt to be assessed on an accrual basis. The subsequent penalty proceedings questioned if the Assessee deliberately misreported income. The CIT (A) allowed the Assessee's appeals, stating that all facts were disclosed, and there was a difference in interpretation. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A) decision, dismissing Revenue's appeals against it. The High Court found no deliberate concealment of income by the Assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. Penalty Proceedings: The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act centered on the Assessee's classification of arrears of rent as a capital receipt. The CIT (A) and ITAT both ruled in favor of the Assessee, stating no deliberate misrepresentation occurred. The High Court concurred, dismissing the appeals as no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order.
|
