9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I) 1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising following questions for our consideration. [A] Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of ₹ 1,60,65,000/-on the issue of addition of ₹ 5,25,00,000/-made on account of non-compete fee. [B] Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law and on facts by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. though the facts in the present case were altogether different. 2. The issue pertains to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). The Assessing Officer after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pete fees is a capital receipt. Mere nonacceptance of the assessee's claim by the Assessing Officer would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Considering the totality of the facts, as discussed by me earlier, the claim of the assessee that the receipt was in the nature of capital receipt was a bona fide claim. Whether the claim is accepted or not, it is a matter of opinion and the issue of taxability of ₹ 5.25 crores is still sub judice before the Hon'ble High court. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that, on these facts, the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) would be squarely applicable. 21. The ld. Departmental Representati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicable, I have not considered and dealt with all other cases relied upon by the ld. Counsel. To conclude the case of Reliance petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communication P. Ltd. (supra), hold that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to ₹ 1,60,65,000/-. 3. It can thus be seen that in the opinion of the Tribunal, this is not a case of non disclosure of the income. The claim made by the assessee was found untenable. The Tribunal therefore, referred to various decisions including that of the Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. , reported in 322 ITR 158 . 4. We see n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
