2015 (10) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....& 1994-95. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, we are therefore, proceeding to dispose them off these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience by adjudicating the ITA No. 5432/Del/2010 (A.Y. 1989-90) as under:- 2. The grounds raised in the ITA No. 5432/Del/2010 read as under:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) in law as well as on merits in deleting the penalty of Rs. 24,61,047/- imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) on the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The appellant craves to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." 3. The facts of the case are not in dispute by both the parties, therefore, need not repea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntents of Ld. CIT(A)'s order wherein he has observed that assessee has stated that penalty can be only imposed if: (a) assessee has not been able to substantiate their explanation. (b) when such explanation was not bonafide and (c) when all the relevant facts relating to the same and material to the computation of total income have not been disclosed. 7.1 Hence, Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that there is no concealment of facts or filing of inaccurate particulars. There exist no conditions which should attract penal provisions. It is also seen that all the relevant and material facts are well within the knowledge of the department, High Courts and other authorities. It was the Ld. CIT(A) observ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unt of difference of interpretation between the Department and the assessee. The appellant has rlied on the case of CIT vs. Nath Brothers Exim International Ltd. 288 ITR 570. The appellant also relied on CIT vs. Rahuljee and Co. 250 ITR 225 (Del); CIT vs. Chandrakant M. Tolla 218 ITR 438 (Mad.); Kikani Gordhan Dass & Co. vs. CIT 200 ITR 678; CIT vs. Ajaib Singh and Co. (2002) 253 ITR 630 (P&H); CIT vs. Calcutta Credit Corporation (1987) 166 ITR 29 (Cal.); CIT vs. Harshvardhan Chemical and Minerals Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 212 (Raj.); CIT vs. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. (1995) 211 ITE 35 (Ori.). It has been stated that the assessee received Rs. 5.12 crores in AY 1998-99, whereas this arrears of rent was added w.e.f. 1989-90 and following....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ence, it is felt that these cases do not fall within the purview of section 271(1)(c). Hence, the penalty imposed for Rs. 11,66,033/- is deleted." 8.1 We also find that section 271(1)(c) postulates imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. On the facts and circumstances of this case the assessee's conduct cannot be said to be contumacious so as to warrant levy of penalty. 8.2 In this regard, we draw support from the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 2463 of 2010 which is squarely applicable in the present case of the assessee. In this case vide order dated 17.3.2010 it has been held that the law laid down in the Dilip Sheroff ....