2013 (12) TMI 530

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e penalty on following grounds:- (i) There was no case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. (ii) The particulars were furnished with return. (iii) Assessee was under bona fide belief for which a proper explanation has been offered. (iv) Assessments have been framed u/s 153C and no information what-so-ever was recovered either from the premises of person searched about any undisclosed income of assessee. Therefore proceedings u/s 153C were not applicable for this addition. A plea which can be raised in penalty proceedings again. 3. Brief facts are: The assessee is a dealer in properties and held the impugned property situated in M Block Connaught Place, New Delhi, as stock-in-trade. According to assessee, the property was for sale; ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r contested. The assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Before assessing officer the assessee contended that the payment of commission to broker was consequent to a business decision taken by the assessee to sell the property after a proper let out. This was a business decision which was bona fide and acted upon. It was further contended that assessee had furnished all the particulars in the return of income and merely because the head of expenditure was changed from "business income" to "house property income" penalty cannot be levied merely because the assessee's quantum appeal has been dismissed. Reliance was placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Reliance Petro Products 322 ITR 158 (SC) for the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case of M/s All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA nos. 5018 to 5022 & 5059/Mum/2010 dated 6-7-2012), there existed a genuine doubt as to what constitute the "material belonging to and sufficient for initiation of block assessment". The penalty cannot be sustained more so when the issue of jurisdiction was subject matter of a judicial debate for which various benches of ITAT, Special Bench and Hon'ble Delhi High Court took divergent views. 4. The ld. DR on the other hand relied on Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 and the orders of lower authorities. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee in rejoinder quotes another judgment from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kanche....