9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apital gain does not survive. Therefore, there is no ground for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) correctly deleted the penalty of ₹ 6,35,91,247/-, which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue. - decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 4827/DEL/2016 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2019 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr. For The Assessee : None ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 27.6.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A)-7, New Delhi re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly, a show cause notice dated 5.3.2015 was issued to the assessee requiring it to show as to why penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) should not be levied in its case. In response to the same, the AR of the assessee filed reply dated 16.3.2015. After considering the reply, the AO observed that the contention of the assessee is that it has not concealed its particular of income but at the same time the fact remains that by changing the head of income. The assessee has tried to pay lesser tax which tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particular of its income. If the case of the assessee had not been selected for scrutiny the loss of revenue would have gone unnoticed. Therefore, it is a case clearly failing within the explanation to section 271(1)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sulted in the levy of tax at higher rate on the appellant. The Ld. CIT(A)-XVI vide order dated 19.3.2013 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee moved an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 23.10.2015 in ITA No. 5754/Del/2013 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:- 30. In the present case the appellant company had acquired the land in the year 2005-06 as a capital asset. It has accounted for the same as capital asset. It has continued to hold the same capital asset. It has not converted that capital asset in stock in trade. There are no multiple transactions. It has declared the capital loss in the preceding year. Considering all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
