Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1906 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - under valuation of closing stock - HELD THAT:- It is true that the business of the proprietary concern M/s. Suvarnamahal was continued as business of the partnership firm on and from 25.02.2008. In the case of ALA Firm [1991 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] , the facts were that the firm was dissolved and the business was discontinued. Therefore, the stock in trade were re-valued at market price whereas the facts of the case in hand show that the business continued in the hands of the partnership firm and the stock in trade were never valued. The facts of the case in hand are in line with the facts considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakti Trading Company [2001 (8) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT]. When the method adopted by the assessee was duly supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income or has concealed the particulars of income. Moreover, when there are two decisions of the Apex Court, one in favour of the assessee and one in favour of the revenue itself makes the issue highly debatable. In our understanding of the law, penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) under such circumstances. We, accordingly, set aside the findings of the CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to delete the penalty so levied Penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) - assessee has not disclosed the income arising from transfer of Trademark/Goodwill in the return of income - HELD THAT:- Insofar as the treatment of the consideration the dispute is settled and the same has to be taxed u/s. 45 of the Act. Admittedly, it is a fact that in spite of the findings of the Tribunal, the A.O. treated the same as income under the business head. The provisions of Section 45(3) of the Act clearly states that for the purposes of Section 48, the amount recorded in the books of accounts as the value of the capital assets shall be deemed to the full value of the consideration. In our understanding of the facts, the HUF proprietary concern could not have envisaged the value of the trademark/goodwill to be recorded by the partnership firm in its books of accounts. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held liable for concealing any particulars of the its income. Moreover, the A.O. has not taxed the income in the head of income as directed by the Tribunal but has taxed the same under a different head of income. On these facts, we do not find this to be a case for the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore there is no error or infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
|