2006 (7) TMI 118 - HC - Income Tax

Revised return filed to claim that capital gain shown earlier was exempt from tax being land was agricultural AO didn t accept the withdrawal of capital gain When the matter was taken up by AO on remand by Tribunal, the assessee admitted that land was not agricultural land & surrendered its claim by not pressing the matter any further & paying the tax which was due there was no concealment of income nor was there any attempt to hide any material facts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not justified

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disputed capital gain exemption claim for agricultural land.
2. Validity of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Bona fide actions of the assessee based on advice received.
4. Assessment of concealment of income and material facts.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute regarding the exemption claim for a capital gain from the sale of land, initially declared as agricultural land by the assessee in the return of income. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return seeking exemption based on advice from the Tehsildar and information from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

2. The Assessing Officer did not accept the withdrawal of the capital gain exemption claim, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act against the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) set aside the penalty order, emphasizing the bona fide actions of the assessee and the absence of malicious intent or suppression of facts.

3. Despite the assessee admitting that the land was not agricultural and paying the due tax, the penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), stating that there was no concealment of income and the dispute centered on the entitlement to the claimed exemption.

4. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, noting that the assessee had not concealed income or hidden material facts from the Revenue. The court concluded that as there was no attempt to deceive the authorities, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified. It was held that no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the assessee.