2016 (4) TMI 851

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. The only ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal is that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 29,02,524/- levied by the learned Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of warehousing, handling and transport, filed its return of income on 31.10.2005 for the assessment year 2005-06. Thereafter assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 20.12.2007. However, subsequently it was revealed that the assessee had made unaccounted investment in an agricultural land measuring 3.79 acres at No.40, Mathur Village, Puzhal Panchayat, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur Dist., during the releva....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng Officer levied minimum penalty worked at 100% tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs. 29,02,524/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income and thereby concealing the income. On appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty by observing as under:- "5.1. I have carefully gone through the order of penalty, submissions made by the appellant and perused the material on record. The case law relied upon by the AR viz., M/s.Gem Granites cites the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd. v. CIT II (Civil Appeal No.9772/13 dated 30.10.2013) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled after considering the Explanat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R that as cash payment was allegedly made as per the agreement dated 15.3.2004, the penalty, if any, should be relating to the F.Y. relating to the assessment year 2004-05 and since each assessment year is a separate year, penalty therefore cannot be fastened on to the instant assessee for the succeeding A.Y. 2005-06 for alleged receipt of 'on-money' for the immediately preceding A.Y. 5.3. Further, there is considerable merit in the AR's contention that once the onus cast on the assessee had been discharged as in the instant case, by way of giving cogent explanation which as stated earlier, was that the agreement to sell included future commitments for certain additional services such as enabling the purchase of an addi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he registered value was on account of 'on money' paid by the appellant for purchase of the said lands. 5.6. Therefore it can be said that the onus, which had shifted on the Department, after the assessee had given an explanation for the difference between the amount mentioned in the registered deed and the sale agreement, had I not been adequately discharged by the AO in conclusively proving that there was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and therefore the penalty imposed on the appellant is hereby directed to be deleted." 4. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that it was evident from the sale agreement dated 15.3.2004 that the sale consideration agreed to be ....