TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the penalty proceedings, the same are emanated from the return of income furnished by the assessee in normal course. There is also dispute on the nature of the said receipt whether it is a capital or revenue receipt. While the ITAT upheld the revenue nature of the receipt, the Hon'ble High Court admitted the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, we find debtability on this issue. It is also undisputed fact that the Hon'ble High Court has admitted the appeal and the same is pending for final adjudication. Considering all these undisputed facts, we find no default in disclosure of information in the return of income by the assessee. Debatability is evident as narrated by the ld. Counsel for the assessee before us. On the other hand, the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstitutes revenue receipt against the assessee s claim that it falls in capital zone. The Assessing Officer taxed the same u/s 28(va) of the Act. 4. During the first appellate proceedings, the assessee filed written submissions dated 19.12.2011, the contents of which are extracted in para 3 of the impugned order. Eventually, the CIT(A) has held that taxing the same u/s 28(va) of the Act is not proper. He, accordingly changed the head of income and held it as taxable under the head income from other sources and invoked the provisions of section 56 of the Act. The matter travelled upto the ITAT and the ITAT held against the assessee and treated the same as a revenue receipt. The relevant order of the ITAT is dated 20.12.2012 vide I.T.A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs M/s Nayan Builders Developers P. Ltd [2014] 89CHH 187. Other decisions are narrated in para 7.4 of the impugned order. He also submitted that merely the quantum is confirmed, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be automatically levied by the Assessing Officer. For this proposition, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in M/s Deloitte Consulting India (P) Ltd vs ACIT (2013 TII-02-HC-MUM-TP). He also submitted the assessee is not in any defaulter so far as furnishing of relevant information in the return of income is concerned. Assessee submits that there is no concealment of particulars in any form. The assessee has taken one view and treated the same as revenue receipt; pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
