9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng a penalty of Rs. 13.30 Lakhs imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. 2. The appellan-trevenue has formulated the following questions of law for our consideration: "(a) Whether on the fact and circumstance of the case, the Tribunal is right in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 13,30,917/- irrespective of the fact that the assessee had claimed the Receipt of Rs. 1.11 crore as capital receipt in order to evade tax (b) Whether on the fact and circumstance of the case, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the fact of the case are squarely covered by the facts of the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 " 3. The respondentassessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not accept the respondentassessee's contention that as complete disclosure of facts had been made and the claim made is bonafide no penalty is imposable in view of the decision of the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158. The Assessing Officer held that the respondentassessee had filed inaccurate particulars and imposed penalty of Rs. 13.13 Lakhs under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. In appeal, the CIT (A) rendered a finding of fact that the assessee has disclosed the receipt of the above amount of Rs. 1.11 Crores and a claim unsustainable in law will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. It further held that the Assessing Officer had not given any finding that the receipt o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding of fact that all facts had been disclosed by the respondent-assessee alongwith its return of income including its claim of not being chargeable to tax. This claim was not found to be not bonafide. The Tribunal also held that the reliance placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication P. Ltd. reported in 327 ITR 510 by the Revenue is inappropriate as in that case the assessee had deliberately debited the amount to Profit and Loss Account though not in accordance with law and the conduct of petitioner in Zoom Communication was held to be not bonafide. Accordingly, the order of the CIT (A) was upheld. 8. The revenue's grievance with the impugned order is that it proceeds on a fundamental error ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) making of an incorrect claim would not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In this case, the assessee bonafide believed that the difference of Rs. 1.65 Crores and Rs. 55 Lakhs is not chargeable to tax and had so stated before the Assessing Officer. The fact that the explanation of assessee is not accepted in quantum proceedings would not ipso facto visit the assessee with penalty in the absence of the claim being held to be not bonafide. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication P. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable in the present facts for the reason that in this case, the stand taken by the respondent could be said to be in defiance of law and thus not bonafide. In this case it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
