2023 (2) TMI 1369 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - not voluntary mentioning by the assessee in its original return the profits as Short Term Capital Gain by selling the building in question and for not offering the said income to tax till the same was detected and notice was issued u/s 148 - HELD THAT - CIT(A) noted that the revenue does not dispute the fact that all relevant facts material to computation of total income were duly furnished by the assessee and no deficiency in furnishing of the facts had been pointed out by the AO. Therefore, it was held that the deeming provision u/s 271(1)(c) would not stand attracted. With this reasoning the penalty was deleted. The revenue carried the matter on appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal re-examined the factual position and, in our view, rightly took note of the decision of Reliance Petrochemicals (P) Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT and held that the revenue has not been able to bring the case of the assessee under any one of the three contingencies which would be available for the purpose of levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in the absence of any error in the order of the Tribunal or in the decision making process, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Decided against revenue.

Summary

The High Court of Calcutta dismissed the revenue's appeal against the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the assessee's compliance with furnishing relevant facts for income computation. The penalty was deemed inapplicable, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petrochemicals. The appeal was dismissed, and the substantial question of law was answered against the revenue.