9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. First we shall take up the appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 3. Only issue raised in the grounds of appeal is against the penalty of Rs. 81,190/-levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under section 271(1)( c) of the Act for declaring the income from letting out of the office premises with various facilities under the head "Business Income" which was declared under the head "Income from House Property" in the return filed in the re-assessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act and assessed accordingly. 4. Facts of the case are that the original return of income was filed on 20.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs. 81,060/-. The said return of income showed income which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to why the penalty should not be imposed upon it for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. Before the AO, the assessee submitted that it had fully disclosed all the material facts in the return of income. It submitted that mere showing the income under the wrong head i.e. "Income from Business or profession" instead of "Income from house property" ddi not in any way amounted to filing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The AO finally imposed the penalty of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded vide order dated 21.2.2014 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld..CIT(A), who also dismissed the appeal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssful in evading incidence of tax on the income earned by it during the instant assessment year. The AO has relied on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 besides other jugments discussed supra. According to the A/R of the appellant there are two views possible in such cases because it is debatable issue that whether income from letting out of property is income from house property or business income for which he has relied on some judgments which have been discussed supra. It has been further stated by him that the original return was the correct return of income and it is only to avoid long drawn litigation the revised return was filed on the advice of tax expert by declaring rent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by assessee in view of detection made by Assessing Officer in search conducted in case of assessee's sister concern, said surrender of income not being voluntary in nature, authorities below were justified in levying penalty under section 271 (l)(c)" There is not even a whisper in the written submissions of the A/R of the appellant on the above said judgment as it is squarely applicable to the facts of the case because the appellant had filed revised return only after the detection by the AO. Hence the grounds of appeal is dismissed" 5. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the assessee had fully disclosed all the material facts regarding rental income earned from letting out of office premises in the return of income fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. AR cited the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Bacardi Martini India Ltd.(2007) 288 ITR 0585 (Del) in support of his argument. Finally, the ld. AR prayed that in view of the ratio laid down in the above decision, penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) was against the spirit of law and be deleted by allowing the appeal of the assessee. On the contrary, the ld. DR strongly opposed the arguments of the ld.AR by stating that the assessee had willfully shown income under the head business income with the motive to reduce tax liability. Whereas, as a matter of fact, the income was of rental natu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In our opinion, the assessee has fully disclosed all the particulars of income in the return of income filed which can not be termed as inaccurate particulars by the assessee for the income. We are of the considered views that it could not be construed as filing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the case of Mimosa Investment Co.(P) Ltd (supra) it has been held as under : "The assessee has disclosed all the relevant material facts for the purpose of computation of total income and has offered explanation in this regard, which was not found false by the Assessing Officer. The explanation of assessee regarding claim of interest expenditures is bona fide. The assessee has substantiated his explanation. When the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
