9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to attract the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.876/Chd/2014 - - - Dated:- 21-11-2016 - SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : S/Shri Ruchesh Sinha Mahesh Kumar For The Respondent : Shri Manjit Singh ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. : This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula dated 11.8.2014 for assessment year 2005-06, confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. At the outset, it may be stated that the instant appeal had been dismissed in limine for non-appearance vide order of the Tribunal dated 15.6.2015 and was later recalled in pursuance to a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee vide order in M.A.No.80/Chd/2015 dated 11.12.2015. In pursuance to the same, the present appeal was fixed before us and was heard by us. 3. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is an educational institution registered under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince the assets had been transferred as donation to other societies and no consideration had exchanged hands on account of the same. The assessee referred to the resolution of the assessee society authorizing the transfer of assets for no consideration. The assessee also pointed out to the accounting entries made by it in its books of account whereby the written down value of the assets transferred in the books of the assessee was reduced from the corpus fund of the assessee society. Thus the assessee stated that it was clear, by virtue of this entry, that the assessee had received no consideration for the transfer made. The assessee also pointed out that the fact that no amount due on account of consideration for the transfer made was shown as debtors in the books of the society also lent credence to its contention that the assets were transferred for no consideration. Further, the assessee pointed out that it had not concealed any particulars of income and not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee pleaded that merely by making the claim which was not accepted by the Revenue, did not attract the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these transfers, nor was shown as receivable in the books of the assessee by way of reflecting the societies to whom assets had been transferred as debtors, proves the fact that the assets had been transferred for no consideration at all. The learned counsel for the assessee thereafter stated that though the findings in quantum proceedings have weightage but the penalty proceedings being separate the assessee can make out its case in penalty proceedings also. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that the findings in quantum proceedings and addition made therein did not automatically lead to the levy of penalty. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon a number of case laws in support of its contention. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that in any case, the assessee had not concealed any particulars of income having reflected the transfer of assets in its Balance Sheet filed alongwith return of income. The learned counsel for the assessee further stated that it was merely a case of claim of the assessee not being accepted by the Revenue which as held in a number of decisions, does not automatically lead to levy of penalty. 7. The learned D.R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Rs.25807834 Rs.31590202 Corpus Fund (as on 1-4-2004) Rs.29408969 10. It is plain and clear from the above that all particulars relating to the transfer of the impugned assets were disclosed in the Balance Sheet of the assessee society filed alongwith the return of income. There appears to be no dispute about this fact also since we find that even the Assessing Officer has admitted to the same at page 3 of its order as follows : The submissions of the assessee are considered and not found logical in view of the fact that assessee has not brought anything new except submitting the submissions which had already been putforth by it during the course of assessment proceedings. As regards assessee s submissions that no sales consideration received in lieu of transfer of fixed assets are not acceptable as in the schedule of fixed assets the assessee has clearly shown transfer/sale of fixed assets to the tune of ₹ 1,05,82,364/-. On account of such transfer/sale value of fixed assets as on 31.03.2005 has been reduced to ₹ 4,98,13,832/- which has been shown in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ixed Assets Chart only disclose movement in Fixed Assets and not to whom they are transferred or from whom they are acquired. Therefore, we hold that the observation of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) merits no consideration. Clearly, therefore, details of the transaction leading to the alleged earning of capital gain were duly disclosed in the return of income field by the assessee. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) has held that the meaning of the word particular used in section 271(1)(c) is detail or details; the details of a claim or the separate items of an account. The Apex Court held that the work particular used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the meaning of the details of claim made. Applying the meaning given by the Apex Court to the term particular used in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, we un-hesitatingly hold that the assessee had furnished all particulars relating to the transfer of assets leading to the alleged earning of capital gain. Therefore, atleast prima-facie, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing the particulars of income to attract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T.A.T. while upholding the addition made held that the Ld. CIT (Appeals) had categorically held in the present case that there was a transfer of assets for consideration which had been received by way of book entries and hence, the transfer is not a donation. It is evident from this finding of the I.T.A.T. that the explanation of the assessee that mere book entries were passed, crediting the transferors and debiting the corpus fund was found to be correct. But at the same time, it was interpreted on the same set of facts that the transfer was not by way of donation. In such circumstances, the assessee society at best can be held to have made an incorrect claim which does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Merely because the assessee did not return capital gains on the impugned transaction, which was added to the income of the assessee, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted. Mere non acceptance of the plausible enough explanation of the assessee in quantum proceedings will not tantamount to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to attract the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
