TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue for statistical purposes. - ITA No.:- 3554/Del /2009 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2016 - SHRI H S SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Department : Shri R.S. Negi, Sr DR For The Assessee : Shri Tarandeep Singh, CA ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III against deleting penalty of ₹ 36,85,892/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated 2nd June, 2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, company field its return of income on 31st October, 2005 declaring total income of ₹ 1,47,02,126/-. In the assessment addition of ₹ 1,13,27,415/- was made on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) (c) of the act. During the course of penalty proceedings assessee submitted later dated 22nd of August 2007 as well as 17/09/2007 wherein it was stated that the assessee had filed the revised written before finalisation of assessment proceedings and has paid the due tax thereon to purchase peace with the Department and to avoid litigation. Therefore it was the submission of the assessee that it has not concealed any income or furnished any accurate particulars of its income and therefore the penalty may not be levied. Vide letter dated 17/09/2007 once again the assessee submitted that that there was no concealment detected in the case by the assessing officer but the return was revised to avoid unnecessary litigation. It was further submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the totality of the facts and the law Ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty. Against this order of the Ld. CIT (A) revenue is in appeal before us 3. Ld. DR submitted that the order of ITAT in case of the assessee for assessment year 2004- 2005 has clearly laid down the facts of the case about the taxation of the shops where in para No. 2 it has been stated that there is a revaluation reserve and the provisions of section 45 (2) is applicable. Therefore it is not the case of the oversight but it is clearly the case of concealment of income. It was further submitted that the written was revised by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings when the detection of chargeability of capital gain was made known by the Ld. AO . Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He further referred to the page No. 10 of the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is that there was a bonafide belief of the appellant and there was no intention of concealing the income on transfer of the shops. He further referred to the notice under section 142 (1) dated 19/02/2007 along with the detailed questionnaire and submitted that there was no detection in that letter of the amount involved and before that assessee has already disclosed this amount by filing revised computation of total income. Therefore, his argument was that that the disclosure is before the detection by the assessing officer. In view of above arguments he vehemently supported the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised before the Ld. AO. It is also not possible to decipher from the order of the Ld. CIT (A) that how he has come to the conclusion that in subsequent year this income was offered for taxation. The conclusion arrived by the Ld. CIT (A) that once appellant had shown income in the subsequent year despite no such income shown in the year under consideration leads to the bonafide belief of the appellant of not having any intention of concealing the income on transfer of the shop. The Ld. AO did not have any advantage of the above arguments/ information in the penalty proceedings as nothing was specifically stated before him by the assesse. Further the reliance by Ld. CIT (A) on the decision of the Hon Gujarat High Court for deleting the pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
