TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 986 (7) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court] - Even otherwise the assessee has declared the income in the computation statement and also given a note wherein specific reasons were mentioned as to why, in the opinion of the assessee, it is not taxable in the year under consideration - it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income – thus, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty – the order of the Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 5931/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2014 - Shri D. Manmohan And Shri Sanjay Arora,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Pitambar Das For the Respondent : Shri H. N. Motiwala ORDER Per D. Manmohan, V.P. This is an appeal filed at the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs. Since the receipt of the redumption fine paid by the assessee is subject to the outcome of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the assessee did not offer the sum of Rs.110 lakhs as income in the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2008-09 with the intention that it may be offered when the issue attains finality. However, since the amount was received in June, 2007, i.e. within the financial year 2007-08, in the return of income filed for the year 2008-09, the assessee declared in the statement that though the redumption fine paid to the Customs Department was received the same was not offered to tax since it has not attained fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observation of the AO is that the assessee has furnished the particulars of income in the return, which were not true and, therefore, it amounts to furnishing inaccurate particular of income resulting in concealment of income. He accordingly levied penalty under section 271(1)(c). 7. Before the learned CIT(A) the assessee contended that the order of CESTAT was challenged by the Customs Department before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and if the decision of the Hon'ble High Court is in favour of the Customs Department the amount received by the assessee cannot be treated as income. In other words, in the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration the claim of the assessee was inchoate and precisely for this reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal of the Revenue in its entirety the decision would be altogether different. In the light of the aforecited decision the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the view taken by the assessee is a bonafide view in the matter, which is further fortified by the fact that the assessee disclosed the details in the return of income alongwith a note so that the Revenue can test his claim properly instead of voluntarily offering the amount to tax, which in the opinion of the assessee, is not in accordance with law. He, therefore, submitted that the details furnished by the assessee would amount to furnishing of particulars and hence the tax authorities were not justified in holding that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. (supra). Even otherwise the assessee has declared the income in the computation statement and also given a note wherein specific reasons were mentioned as to why, in the opinion of the assessee, it is not taxable in the year under consideration. Under these peculiar circumstances it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. On a conspectus of the matter, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. We, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the AO as well as the CIT(A) and delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th April, 2014. - - TaxTMI - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
