9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s situation, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not imposable as in any case, it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income or has concealed particulars of its income before the AO during quantum proceedings. Thus, the CIT(A) was right in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO and we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the impugned order of the CIT(A) in this regard. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1888/Del/2013m, ITA No. 1889/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 29-12-2014 - Shri B. C. Meena And Shri Chandra Mohan Garg.,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri J.P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR ORDER Per Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member These appeals have been filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi dated 3.11.2009 in Appeal No. 229/08-09 and in Appeal No.231/08-09 pertaining to AY 2006-07. 2. The sole ground raised by the revenue in both the appeals is similar except quantum of penalty which reads as under:- On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in:- (i) Deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax Act a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for imposing penalty was not attracted since assessees had furnished an explanation which was bona fide and all facts relating to the same and material to the computation of its total income were disclosed in their respective returns of income. The AO, in turn, rejected each of the above contentions of the appellants and held that the appellants had furnished inaccurate particulars of their incomes/concealed the particulars of their incomes and therefore, they were liable for penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c). He treated the appellants as assessees in default and imposed individual penalties on them u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, amounting to ₹ 29,43,863/- (Malika Developers), ₹ 31,38,886/- (Vardan Buildcon), ₹ 30,07,137/- (Tarini Developers). 4. The aggrieved assessees preferred appeals before the CIT(A) which were allowed by passing the impugned order dated 23.1.2013 and the CIT(A) directed the AO to delete respective penalties in all three appeals. Consequently, the aggrieved revenue filed three separate appeals before H Bench of the Tribunal with the sole ground as reproduced hereinabove. 5. We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;ble Tribunal held that where assessee had disclosed full facts in connection with claim made in Return and disallowance in quantum assessment was due to different of judicial opinion between Assessing Officer and Assessee, penalty could not be levied u/s 271(1)(c). In the case of Mahinder Siddhu Vs. ACIT (2010) 39 DTR 233 (Del Trib.), the Hon'ble Tribunal held that in the absence of any falsity in the details submitted by the assessee regarding Computation of Income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable in respect of inadvertent wrong claim made by assessee for adjustment the Long Term Capital Loss against Short Term Capital Gains. 4.16 In the light of the discussions in the preceding paragraphs and the judicial pronouncements cited therein, I am of the considered opinion that in the instant three cases, the appellants had revealed all the particulars of the transaction in their Returns of Income. It is a different matter that additions have been made in quantum assessment, treating the profits on purchase and sale of agricultural land as business profits and not as capital gains. Since, the appellants has not shown any mala fide intentions and has not filed any ina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act. The penalty proceedings u Is 271 (1 )(c) are separate proceedings distinct from the assessment proceedings and where revenue has to establish separately the existence of mens rea for imposition of penalty. The assessee had submitted full particulars regarding. sale and purchase of land and had claimed the profit as capital gain. From the particulars filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer had come to know about the fact of sale of land, however, he rejected the claim of assessee and assessed the gain.' as' business income instead of capital gain as claimed by assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products has held that if complete details of transactions has been revealed by the assessee in its return of income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) will not be imposable just because the claims of the assessee are found to be legally not allowable. The facts and circumstances of the present case are squarely covered In favour of assessee vide the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. which has been relied upon by Ld CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
