TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ITAT vide order dated 22.11.2013. In view of our above discussion, conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) and following our own order, we uphold the order of the first appellate authority and we decline to interfere with the same. We direct the AO to delete the penalty so made by him. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 716/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2016 - Shri G. D. Agrawal, Vice President, And Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member Appellant by : Shri R.S. Negi, Sr. DR Respondent by : Shri Sanjeev Puri, CA ORDER Per Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Gurgaon dated 13/12/2013 for A.Y 2008-09. 2. The solitary issue raised in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ld. CIT(A). 4. Both the rival representatives reiterated their submissions as taken by them before the lower authorities. The ld. AR relied on the impugned order and submi tted that the ld. CIT(A) was quite justified in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO. The ld. AR placed his reliance on the decision in the case of the assessee herself in ITA No. 993/Del/2013 for A.Y 2008-09 decided by ITAT Delhi H Bench vide order dated 22.11.2013 wehrein similar penalty was deleted by the ITAT. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the assessment order and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO. However, he could not controvert the fact that the ITAT Delhi order dated 22.11.2013 in assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te particulars alone, the assessee does not, ipso facto, become liable to a penalty. Imposition of penalty is not at all automatic. Meaning thereby, any addition in quantum would not lead to automatic levy of penalty and this is also true in respect of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Not only is the levy of penalty discretionary in nature but the discretion has to be exercised keeping the relevant factors in mind and the approach of the taxman must be fair and objective. This subject has been a matter of great controversy. Finally, after referring to the decisions in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs JCIT Another, 291 ITR 519, Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as well as Union of India vs Raj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271 (1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. 7. Adverting to the facts of the case, we find that the assessee s claim was that it was under the bonafide belief that the income from sale of property was assessable as long term capital gains only. It was vehemently submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee that there was no question of concealing of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It was also argued that all the details relating to sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cally comes into play. It is true that the assessee had disclosed the transactions regarding sale of property in the computation of income filed with the return of income. We further find that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty in the case of the very assessee for A.Y 2008-09 by relying on the decision of the ITAT vide order dated 22.11.2013. In view of our above discussion, conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) and following our own order, we uphold the order of the first appellate authority and we decline to interfere with the same. We direct the AO to delete the penalty so made by him. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 31.05.2016. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
