2016 (8) TMI 519

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ial question of law: Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the order passed by the CIT(A) and thereby deleting the penalty of Rs. 61,37,135/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, when the quantum additions were confirmed? 2. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer worked out the interest income earned on share application money at Rs. 1,23,73,934/- which was treated as income from other sources and taxed accordingly. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee concealed the particulars of its income to the extent of Rs. 1,23,73,934/- with an intention to evade payment of legitimate revenue to the Government and accordingly penal proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act were ini....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....such a claim made in return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars and that therefore there is no question of inviting penalty under section 271(1)(c). 5. Having heard Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Department and Mr. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee and the question posed for consideration by us reproduced hereinabove and considering the decision of this Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), the question, which is raised in the present appeal is required to be answered in favour of the assessee. In the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), the Apex court has held that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1) (c) must ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bihar Alloys & Steels Ltd 206 ITR 350 and the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Goa Carbon Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 73 Taxman 68 held that the income was assessable under the head income from other sources. The view of the AO was affirmed by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal. In respect of this addition impugned penalty was levied by the AO which was confirmed by the CIT(A). We find that in the instant case, the addition was made because of the bona fide difference in the interpretation of law as evidenced by the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court relied upon by the assessee. Thus, in our considered opinion the lower authorities erred ....