2016 (7) TMI 699 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds penalty deletion for assessment year 2003-04

Income Tax Officer 25 (1) (4), Mumbai Versus M/s. New Kamlesh Jewellers

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2003-04. The appellant's bonafide belief, ... Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - outstanding capital gains tax - inaccurate particulars of income - whether assessee was under bonafide belief that there was no liability to capital gains tax? - Held that:- There was no intention of the assessee to evade tax. That full particulars were disclosed. The assessee had not declared capital gains under bonafide belief that it was not liable to pay any tax on this income. After considering the above submissions of the assessee and going through the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has committed no mistake while deleting the penalty levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act upon the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty - Decided in favour of assessee Issues involved:Appeal against deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2003-04.Analysis:1. Issue of Penalty Deletion by CIT(A):The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty by the Ld. CIT(A). The Revenue contended that the assessee had not admitted the capital gains under section 45(4) in full, leading to the imposition of the penalty. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the appellant had disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment, including the reconstitution of the firm and retirement of partners. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the appellant had a bonafide belief that there was no liability for capital gains tax due to the absence of dissolution and transfer of capital assets as defined under section 2(14). The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that the appellant's admission before him regarding the quantum of capital gains was an alternative submission and did not amount to an admission of guilt. The Ld. CIT(A) referred to the Tribunal's decision on the transfer of capital assets during retirement, supporting the appellant's position. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty, stating that the appellant had made a proper and true disclosure, and there was no concealment of income.2. Tribunal's Decision Upholding CIT(A) Order:Upon hearing the rival contentions and reviewing the records, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. The assessee argued that there was no intention to evade tax and that full particulars were disclosed. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's stance that there was a bonafide belief in the non-liability for capital gains tax under section 45(4) based on legal interpretations. The Tribunal found no error in the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed by the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) based on the appellant's bonafide belief, proper disclosure of facts, and legal interpretations regarding the applicability of capital gains tax. The Tribunal found no concealment of income and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the deletion of the penalty.