TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 1180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in deleting the penalty amounting to Rs. 4,14,45,686/- levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 3. The ld. AR for the assessee pointed out that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered by the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in relation to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The ld. DR for the revenue placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The only issue raised in the present appeal is in relation to levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act on the treatment of sales....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 290/Chd/2011 in the appeal filed by the revenue, vide order dated 06.03.2014 deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the said issue of sales tax subsidy observing as under : 43. The next item of addition is the assessability of sales tax subsidy of Rs. 6,80,61,977/- received by the assessee during the year under consideration. The assessee had treated the said subsidy as capital receipt in its return of income, but the same was assessed as revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in assessee's own case reported in 286 ITR 1 (P&H). The Tribunal (supra) for the instant assessment year also held the said subsidy to be revenue in nature....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 271(1)(c) of the Act arose before the Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. (supra) and the Tribunal vide order dated 25.9.2013 on similar issue of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on issue of holding the sales tax subsidy as capital in nature held as under: "18. The issue arising vide present appeal is in relation to levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act on such debatable issue. The plea of the assessee in the present case was admitted for adjudication before the Higher Forums, makes the issue debatable issue. The addition in the present case has been made on the basis of such debatable issue that whether the sales tax subsidy received by the assessee was capital in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r cent of the gross income received in convertible foreign exchange in India provided by it to its foreign clients. The Assessing Officer, however, was of the view that on correct interpretation under section 80-O, deduction is restricted to the net income and, therefore, expenditure incurred in India for earning the foreign exchange had to be deducted. The Assessing Officer, therefore, wanted the assessee to furnish the details of expenses. As the assessee failed to do the needful in respect of various particulars demanded, the Assessing Officer was left with no alternative but to estimate such expenditure in the ratio of proportion of foreign income to the total income." 4. In the present case, there is no dispute about the quantum of r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hold that in view of the debatable issue raised, the assessee is not exigible to levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act in the facts of the present case where the claim of the assessee that the receipts were capital in nature was rejected and the receipts were held to be revenue in nature and hence taxable. Upholding he order of the CIT (Appeals) we dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in ITA No.70/Chd/2012." 46. Following the same finding, we find no merit in holding the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of such debatable issue. The assessee is not exigible to levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act on the aforesaid treatment of sales tax subsidy as revenue in the hand....