9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om Chandigarh Administration and after necessary formalities, some of the plots were auctioned though public auction HELD THAT:- Parties has ultimately reached to an amicable settlement with regard to the taxability of the proceeds received on auction of the plots. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that no penalty proceedings would be initiated. In our opinion in view of the amicable settlement reached and the assurance given before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Court, no penalty could be levied. We feel that this is not a fit case of levy of penalty and accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 76/Chd/2013, ITA No. 975/Chd/2014, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter necessary formalities, some of the plots were auctioned though public auction. In the bidding M/s Parsavnath Developers Ltd work was sold a plot as a Developer of the RGCTP and some funds were received from them. This sale was not offered to taxation by claiming that assessee was only a nodal agency to Chandigarh Administration and therefore, sums were received on behalf of the Chandigarh Administration. However, Assessing Officer did not agree with this and these funds amounting to ₹ 8,00,89,75,168/- were taxed as income of the assessee. The addition has been confirmed later on by Ld. CIT(A) as well as Tribunal. On this addition, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 6. Later on, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in this regard. 10. Against the interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana, the Revenue filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order in SLP No. IA No. 2 in SLP(C) No. 5346/13 in CIT vs Chandigarh Housing Board order dated 30.4.2014 This special leave petition is filed against an interim order dated 07.05.2012 passed by the High Court in ITA No. 41/12. Since the matter is between the Income Tax Department and the Chandigarh Housing Board, which is a statutory Board under the provisions of Chandigarh Administrative, there was some discussion of an amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties. The Record of Discussion held on 14. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng / record of discussions and the order of Hon ble Supreme Court, brings out that no settlement was ever arrived at in respect of waiver of penalty Since, the penalty proceedings have already not only been initiated but infact penalty stands levied / imposed, any further decision can only be taken in the appellate proceedings pending before the ITAT and the CIT(A) respectively and such technical propriety stands noted in the Record of discussion . 12. Against the above order the assessee filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 13. The Hon'ble High Court ultimately passed the following order:- Mr. G.C. Srivastava appearing for the revenue states, on instructions, that a compromise e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ots. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that no penalty proceedings would be initiated. In our opinion in view of the amicable settlement reached and the assurance given before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Court, no penalty could be levied. We feel that this is not a fit case of levy of penalty and accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and delete the penalty. 15. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA Nos. 975 976/Chd/2014 : 16. In both these cases the facts are identical to the facts of ITA No. 76/Chd/2013 for assessment year 2007-08 and following that order we delete the penalties in these two years also. 17. Resultantly, both the appeals are allowed. ITA No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or enduring benefit and, therefore, it was a case of wrong claim of expenditure as Revenue expenditure and therefore, levy of penalty was justified. 23. On the other hand Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that issue is debatable. In any case merely disallowance of expenditure would not invite penal action. 24. We have considered the rival submissions carefully and we agree with the observation of Ld. CIT(A) that assessee has made complete disclosure in respect of this item. At best, it is a case of disallowance of a particular item of expenditure because same was in the nature of capital expenditure but that does not mean that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed some particulars. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
