9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars of income - rejection of claim would not tantamount to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income warranting levy of penalty – Relying upon COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, MUMBAI Versus M/s BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD [2013 (3) TMI 373 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - assessee has furnished and disclosed all relevant particulars regarding the income from letting out of the property - assessment of income under a different head by the AO resulting in disallowance of expenditure would not justify levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) particularly when the assessee is in the business of taking the property on lease and then letting out the same on sub-lease – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 2731, 2732 and 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able under the head Income from House Property 4. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 2. We have heard the ld. DR and carefully perused the relevant material on record. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee respondent despite serving of notice of the hearings of these appeals. Therefore, we propose to hear and adjudicate these appeals exparte. 3. The assessee is a Private Ltd. Company and in the business of acquiring property on lease and sub-leasing property to various parties with a view to earn profit. The assessee enters into various agreements with lessor on one hand and sub-leases on the other hand. During the course of assessment proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leted the penalty levied by the AO. The ld. DR has vehemently relied upon the order of the AO and submitted that in view of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c), the assessee has failed to prove the claim of business income as bonafide. Accordingly the AO is justified in levying the penalty when the assessee had full knowledge of the fact that subject income is assessed to tax as income from house property and making a claim of business income was with the clear intention to avoid tax liability. 5. Having considered the submissions of the ld. DR as well as orders of the authorites below, we note that the assessee is in the business of taking property on lease basis and further leasing out on sub-lease. The income arising from its activit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome warranting levy of penalty. In the recent decision in the case of CIT vs. Benett Coleman (215 taxmann 93) the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has observed in para-3 as under :- 3. So far as question (ii) is concerned, the respondentassessee had claimed premium on redemption of debentures as income from capital gains. Whereas the assessing officer held that the redemption of debentures is revenue receipt assessable to tax under the head income from other sources. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of assessing officer. The respondent- assessee did not file any further appeal on the quantum proceedings. Thereafter, assessing officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the respondent- assessee. The CIT(A) also confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
