TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.T.A. No. 42 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 17-6-2015 - G. Chandraiah And Challa Challa Kodanda Ram,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr B Narasimha Sarma For the Respondent : None ORDER (Per Hon ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram, J) This appeal at the instance of Revenue, arises from the order of the Tribunal dated 16.09.2014 in ITA No.1803/Hyd/2013 for the assessment year 2007-08, raising the following substantial question of law: In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the order of the Honble Tribunal (ITAT) is not erroneous and perverse in law in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the Respondent-assessee made a wrong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re us. It is one thing for someone to say that the order is perverse and it is another thing that a particular finding of fact is perverse, thereby establishing the aspect of perversity. Whichever order which may ultimately be set aside by the appellate forum or the higher authority, basing on certain well settled legal principles, merely because the same was erroneous, need not be perverse or cannot be called as perverse. 4. In the facts of the present case, the Tribunal had recorded a finding in the penalty proceedings that the assessee had purchased agricultural lands and for a good number of years had offered income as agricultural income on account of the assessee earning income on leasing of the agricultural lands. Tribunal found, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. 5. In fact, the Tribunal had also taken into consideration of the law laid down by the Punjab Haryana High Court in Sidhartha Enterprises 322 ITR 82, wherein it was held as under: The judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors Ors. (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 617 : (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) cannot be read as laying down that in every case where particulars of income are inaccurate, penalty must follow. What has been laid down is that qualitative difference between criminal liability under s. 276C and penalty u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|