TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs, there were two different opinions of the Revenue authorities itself on this issue, inasmuch as the Assessing Officer treated the impugned sum as income from other sources whereas the ld. CIT(A) in first round of appeal by the assessee treated the same amount as income from long-term capital gain. Once, the Revenue Authorities had expressed two views on the same issue, how the bonafide of the assessee to show the said amount as income from long term capital gains could be doubted by the Authorities below. However, the fact remains, that the assessee had declared all particulars of the impugned receipts before the Revenue authorities. Mere making of a claim not found sustainable under law, the same would not amount to concealment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3. Because even otherwise Assessee bonafidely declared ₹ 130,00,000/- as Income from Long term Capital gains as the said amount was part and Parcel of sale of Property though Assets comprise of Furniture Fixtures only. 4. Because even otherwise Penalty of Rs,14,58,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) have been levied as the amount of ₹ 1,30,00,000/- have been treated as the Income from other sources i.e. only on Account of change of Head. 5. Because even otherwise change of Head of Income as declared in the Return is neither concealment of Income nor Income from filing of inaccurate Particulars of Income as held in Reliance petrochemicals Ltd. 6. Because even otherwise there was a bonafide claim and declared Income fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of furniture, being the solitary transaction, would be treated as income from other sources. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after deducting the estimated cost of furniture to the tune of ₹ 20,00,000/-, added the remaining sum of ₹ 1,30,00,000/- to the income of the assessee as income from other sources. 3. In quantum appeal, the ld. CIT(A) reversed the above view of Assessing Officer observing that furniture and fixture sold for ₹ 1.5 crores was an integral part of the sale consideration of assessee s share in property and there was no logic to allow any cost of acquisition in respect of furniture and fixture separately. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, held that the assessee had rightly shown the total sale consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfy the ingredient of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer being not satisfied by the explanation of the assessee, imposed penalty of ₹ 14,58,600/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income after relying on the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 51. The appeal filed against penalty order stood dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by relying on various decision, vide the impugned order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee had bonafidely declared the amount of ₹ 1,30,00,000/- as long term capital gains as the said amount was integral part of the building sold. It was submitted that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the impugned order. It was submitted that the assessee had shown the income under the head income from long term capital gains instead of income from other sources , which alludes that the assessee has concealed the true particulars of income, entailing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. He strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the particulars of income of ₹ 1,30,00,000/- was declared by the assessee in its return of income, taxable as long-term capital gains. The contention of the assessee has been that it was done under the bonafide belief that the furniture and fixtures sold wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there is no comments of the authorities below on declaration of the impugned amount in the return of income, though it was shown under different. Only the head of income has been changed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there being no concealment of the impugned sale consideration on the part of assessee, we do not find it a fit case to impose penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. No contrary material is laid on record on behalf of the Revenue to sustain the impugned order. The decisions relied by the ld. CIT(A) do not contain the facts as involved in the present case. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is found full of merits and is fit to be allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed . Order pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
