9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue relied on certain decisions in the appeal. Prima facie, the grounds raised in the appeal are argumentative in nature. 3. The relevant facts of the issue under consideration include that the assessee received 1 million Euros for forgoing the right to sue/initiate legal proceedings for breach of pre-emptive right to purchase shares held by M/s Vendior NV through Vedior Asia AV in M/s MaFoi. During the assessment proceedings, there was dispute between the assessee and the Assessing Officer about the nature of the said receipt equivalent of Rs. 3,82,40,000/-. The Revenue is of the opinion that the said receipt constitutes revenue receipt against the assessee's claim that it falls in capital zone. The Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel for the assessee made various submissions. Some of them include that the nature of receipt of Rs. 3,82,40,000/- is a debatable one. There is no clear cut findings/judicial precedent about the nature of that receipt and it falls in revenue field. In such circumstances, levying penalty is not valid. He also mentioned that the Hon'ble High Court has admitted the appeal of the assessee, and therefore, the debatability of the issue under consideration is self-evident. In such circumstances, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not exigible. For this proposition, he relied on various decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs M/s Nayan Builders & Developers P. Ltd [2014] 89CHH 187. Other decisions are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m 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 Revenue failed to prove the absence of debatabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
