Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 999 - ITAT KOLKATALevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- In the instant case, it could be seen from the aforesaid facts, the assessee had bonafide doubt and belief as to in which year the capital gains had to be offered ie. in Asst Years 2006-07, 2007-08 or in 2010-11. This confusion gets further strengthened by the act of the AO by trying to levy capital gains in Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the search assessments for which show cause notices were issued by the AO. Even though the cash component got surfaced only pursuant to the search, the year of taxability of capital gains was in dispute between the assessee and the revenue. Moreover, the assessee had offered the entire cash component in the revised return and the assessment for the Asst Year 2010-11 was framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.3.2013 accepting the same. There was absolutely no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee for the Asst Year 2010- 11 , for which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied by the ld AO. Hence we hold that the facts before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court are squarely distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. Hence the decision relied upon by the ld DR does not advance the case of the revenue. In view of the aforesaid facts and findings and by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills [2003 (4) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA High Court] we hold that the revenue had not made out any case for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst Year 2010-11. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
|