Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2008 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (5) TMI 299 - ITAT DELHIPenalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - Concealment Of Income - Whether addition made in the quantum proceedings actually represents the concealment on the part of the assessee as envisaged in section 271(1)(c) - CIT imposed penalty in respect of addition of sum made by him to the total income of the assessee by way of enhancement on account of security deposit received by it from DMIL under memorandum of understanding treating the same as the income accrued to the assessee in the year under consideration - HELD THAT:- In the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Durga Chand Kaushish [1973 (8) TMI 161 - SUPREME COURT] held that in considering the document, one must have regard to the meaning of the words it has used and not to the presumed intention of the parties. If the memorandum of understanding between the assessee and DMIL especially the relevant clauses, i.e., clauses 8 to 11 thereof, is interpreted by applying this principle laid down by the Supreme Court, it can be seen that the interpretation given by the assessee to the said document while taking the stand that the amount in question was its security deposit and did not represent any income accrued during the year under consideration, was a possible one and the stand so taken was bona fide. We are of the view that the claim of the assessee treating the amount in question received from DMIL as security deposit was bona fide as the same was based on the interpretation given to the memorandum of understanding especially the relevant clauses which was possible as discussed and although the said claim was not found to be acceptable in the quantum proceedings on the merits, it was not a case of concealment as envisaged in section 271(1)(c) attracting levy of penalty especially when all the material facts relevant to the said claim were duly furnished by the assessee before the AO. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the ld CIT(A) imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and cancel the penalty so imposed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|