9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 271(1)(c) of the Act? II. Without prejudice to above, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) was justified in reducing penalty relatable to excess claim of exemption u/s 54EC of the Act?" 2. Undisputed position is that identical questions in relation to the brother of the present assessee came up for consideration in Income Tax Appeal No.1812 of 2016 filed by the Department. The appeal of the Department was dismissed by an order dated 4th March, 2019 making following observations: "2. The principle dispute of the revenue in this appeal relates to the judgment of the Tribunal deleting penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer against the respondentassessee under Section 271(1)(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he course of the proceedings, the assessee had furnished further details which included the lease documents, letter making detailed grounds why according to the assessee receipt on sale of leasehold rights was not chargeable to capital gain tax etc. On such basis the Tribunal recorded that there was no dispute that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. Merely because the claim put forth by the assessee was found to be unsustainable in law, in the opinion of the Tribunal penalty would not necessarily attach. In this context, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC). The Tribunal al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n record, we find that the Tribunal has given elaborate reasons for deleting the penalty. The record suggests that assessee had not offered certain receipts to tax under bonafide belief that the same was not taxable. Quite apart from the existence of the letter dated 20th September, 2010 not being disputed by the revenue either before the CIT (Appeals) or the Tribunal, during the assessment proceedings undoubtedly the assessee had made full representation why according to his belief the receipt was not chargeable to tax. Merely because the Assessing Officer did not accept such a stand of the assessee, would not automatically permit revenue to levy penalty. So much, it made abundantly clear by the Supreme Court through series of judgments pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and the requirement of the mensrea does not exist. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Mak Data P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income TaxII Civil Appeal No. 9772 of 2013 (SC) in which it was held that mere statement of an assessee that he had surrendered the additional income with a view to avoid litigation to buy peace would not be a proper defence under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. These judgments thus cover different areas with which we are not concerned in the present appeal. We have given independent reasons for confirming the view of the Tribunal. No question of law in this respect arises. 8. The second question pertains to penalty for breach of Section 54EC of the Act. Amount involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
