9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty in dispute. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 6094/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 27-9-2018 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. For The Department : M s. Rashmita Jha, Sr. DR. ORDER PER K . NARASIMHA CHARY, J . M . This is an appeal by the Assessee challenging the Order dated 24. 01. 2014 in Appeal No. 0166/2012-13 for assessment year 2007-08 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VIII, New Delhi (in Short Ld. CIT(A) ) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the penalty of ₹ 2, 41, 56, 197/- made by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng term capital gain on sale of above land was not routed through the profit and loss account and therefore tax liability was not computed on this long term capital gain u/s 115JB. Accordingly, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and notice u/s. 274 read with section 271 was issued to the assessee on 22. 12. 2010, which was not responded by the assessee and accordingly, the assessee lost its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter before the Tribunal. Accordingly, to finalized the penalty proceedings, the assessee issued show cause notice on 31. 10. 2012 which was replied by the assessee. After considering the reply, the AO observed that the capital gain was not routed through the cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view, as is held inter alia by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. , reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC). Lastly, he further submitted that the said penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has been erroneously sustained and enhanced by Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating bona fides of the assessee, facts of the case and debatable nature of the issue involved. In view of above, he requested to delete the penalty in dispute. 4. Per contra, Ld. DR strongly relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have carefully gone through the records in the Appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the quantum addition in ITA No. 420/Del/2011 wherein the Tribunal observed in unambiguous term vide para no. 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
