TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived in excess of amount paid by the respondent-assessee to the original vendor could be a subject matter of taxation and we find that the disclosure of ₹ 1.11 Crores which was made by the petitioners as a part of its notes to accounts as well as letter dated 29 October 2005 alongwith its claim of not being taxable was filed along with the Return of Income. Thus there has been a complete disclosure of all facts as held by CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Besides the claim made by the respondentassessee of not being taxable was not found to be not bonafide. As held by the Supreme Court in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ) making of an incorrect claim would not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 crore as capital receipt in order to evade tax (b) Whether on the fact and circumstance of the case, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the fact of the case are squarely covered by the facts of the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 3. The respondentassessee had on 27 January 1995 entered into a Development Agreement with the owners of land at Pune by paying a consideration of ₹ 54 Lakhs. During the previous year relevant to the subject Assessment Year 200506 the aforesaid agreement dated 27 July 1995 was canceled and the owners of the land paid the petitioners a sum of ₹ 1.65 Crores (including the amount of ₹ 54 Lakhs originally paid by the respondentassessee). The respondentassessee wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. 6. In appeal, the CIT (A) rendered a finding of fact that the assessee has disclosed the receipt of the above amount of ₹ 1.11 Crores and a claim unsustainable in law will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. It further held that the Assessing Officer had not given any finding that the receipt of the aforesaid amount was not intimated to the Assessing Officer. The CIT (A) was of the view that the decision of Apex Court in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) applied to the present facts and deleted the penalty. 7. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal, by the impugned order upheld the order of CIT (A). The Tribunal in the impugned order held that the petitioner had disclosed that an amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that case the assessee had deliberately debited the amount to Profit and Loss Account though not in accordance with law and the conduct of petitioner in Zoom Communication was held to be not bonafide. Accordingly, the order of the CIT (A) was upheld. 8. The revenue's grievance with the impugned order is that it proceeds on a fundamental error that there has been full and complete disclosure on the part of the respondentassessee. This is so as the disclosure is only of ₹ 1.11 Crores and not of ₹ 1.65 Crores which was the amount received by the respondentassessee on relinquishment of its rights to immovable property. It is also contended by the revenue that the decision of Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication P. Ltd. is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antum proceedings would not ipso facto visit the assessee with penalty in the absence of the claim being held to be not bonafide. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication P. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable in the present facts for the reason that in this case, the stand taken by the respondent could be said to be in defiance of law and thus not bonafide. In this case it is not the case of revenue that the claim made by the petitioner was not on the basis of bonafide view. We find that on appreciation of the facts, two authorities have concurrently come to finding of fact that there was complete disclosure of facts and the claim made though not found acceptable was bonafide to conclude that no penalty be visited on responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
