TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich reads as under:- "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in:- (i) Deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax Act amounting to Rs. 30,07,137/- imposed by AO." 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these appeals are as under:- "2. Return of income was filed on 31.10.2006 declaring business loss of Rs. 6,727/-, Rs. 7,182/- and Rs. 6.224/- respectively. The AO assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 87,39,150/-, Rs. 93,18,090/- and Rs. 89,27,660/- after making an addition of Rs. 87,45,880/-, Rs. 93,25,2701- and Rs. 89,33,8801- respectively. These additions were made by the AO after treating agricultural income declared by the assessee on sale of agricultural land as income under the he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessees have neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income; (v) the land transacted in was agricultural land and not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act; and (vi) explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) for imposing penalty was not attracted since assessees had furnished an explanation which was bona fide and all facts relating to the same and material to the computation of its total income were disclosed in their respective returns of income. The AO, in turn, rejected each of the above contentions of the appellants and held that the appellants had furnished inaccurate particulars of their incomes/concealed the particulars of their incomes and therefore, they were liable fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of M/s Malika Developers has been dismissed, therefore, the present appeals pertaining to other two assessees viz. M/s Vardhan Buildcon and M/s Tarini Developers also deserve to be dismissed as the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, therefore, present appeals should also be dismissed in the same manner. 6. Replying to the above, ld. DR fairly admitted that the appeal of the revenue in the case of M/s Malika Developers has been dismissed by the ITAT "E" Bench vide its order dated 30.5.2014 (supra). However, ld. DR supported the penalty order and submitted that the CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the penalty on wrong premises and without any justified reason, therefore, the appeal of the reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Capital Gains." 4.16 In the light of the discussions in the preceding paragraphs and the judicial pronouncements cited therein, I am of the considered opinion that in the instant three cases, the appellants had revealed all the particulars of the transaction in their Returns of Income. It is a different matter that additions have been made in quantum assessment, treating the profits on purchase and sale of agricultural land as business profits and not as capital gains. Since, the appellants has not shown any mala fide intentions and has not filed any inaccurate particulars of income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not imposable in these cases. Therefore, penalty is imposed in these cases u/s 271(1)(c) are hereby deleted. " 8. We ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ld AR on the other hand, submitted that the land was purchased with a view to earn capital gain, .the Assessing Officer had made addition on deemed basis. It was further submitted that land was situated outside the municipal limit and full particulars were furnished and there was no suppression of facts. The Assessing Officer had made addition due to difference of opinion and not because of any other reasons. 8. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the material available on record. We find that though the assessee had lost upto the High Court in the quantum proceedings yet, losing a case in quantum proceedings is not a sufficient reason for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act. The penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... then penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act will not be imposable just because the claims of the assessee are found to be legally not allowable. In the instant case, the assessee furnished all particulars of purchase and sale of agricultural land which brought profit to the assessee. During the quantum proceedings, the AO treated the profit as business profit instead of capital gains as claimed by the assessee, therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income or has concealed particulars of its income. We further hold that merely because the assessee proposed the impugned profits from sale and purchase of agricultural land as capital gain but the AO assessed the same....