9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iples of law as per decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Chelmsford Club (2000 (3) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT) case AO has failed to make out the case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income by the assessee rather it is a case of imposing penalty on the basis of decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bangalore Club (2013 (1) TMI 343 - SUPREME COURT) case which was not in the notice of assessee at the time of filing the return pursuant to the notice u/s 148 of the Act sufficient to attract the provisions contained u/s 271(1)(c), so we find no illegality or perversity in the deletion of penalty made by the ld. CIT (A). Consequently, all the aforesaid appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or AY 1999-2000 which was deleted by ld. CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal. However, Hon ble Uttarakhand High Court has reversed the decision rendered by the Tribunal and decided the issue in favour of the Revenue which was confirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court. Then, assessment was reopened and the assessee filed copy of original return showing nil income despite the fact that it had lost the case before the Hon ble Supreme Court. Consequently, AO levied the penalty of ₹ 11,32,600/-, ₹ 10,56,000/- and ₹ 14,67,000/- for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 2012-13 respectively on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment. 4. Assessee carried the matter by way of appeals before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee particularly when it has given all the necessary details regarding interest income of FDRs and messing up charges. This proposition of law was settled by the Hon ble Apex Court in Chelmsford Club vs. CIT 243 ITR 89 (SC), the operative part of which is reproduced as under :- Held, reversing the decision of High Court, that the assessee s business was governed by the doctrine of mutuality. It was an admitted fact that the business of the assessee did not come within the scope of business referred to in section 2(24)(vii). It was not only the surplus from the activities of the business of the club that was excluded from the levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above, we are of the considered view that AO has failed to make out the case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income by the assessee rather it is a case of imposing penalty on the basis of decision rendered by the Hon ble Apex Court in Bangalore Club (supra) case which was not in the notice of assessee at the time of filing the return pursuant to the notice u/s 148 of the Act sufficient to attract the provisions contained u/s 271(1)(c), so we find no illegality or perversity in the deletion of penalty made by the ld. CIT (A). Consequently, all the aforesaid appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on this 14th day of May, 2018. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
