TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) for Rs. 1,48,19,500/-. 2. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that: a) the Appellant has neither concealed the particulars of its Income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of such income; b) no unaccounted cash was received by the Appellant on sale of plots; c) no income has arised or accrued in the hands of the Appellant out of receipts from M/s. Alokik Township Corporation; and d) merely because certain additions are made rejecting the bonafide explanation per se will not be sufficient to attract penalty u/s.271(1)(c). 3. In reaching to the conclusi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 25 Lakhs, made by the AO, was deleted by the FAA. 3.The AO initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Vide his order, dated 18.02.2011, he held that assessee concealed the particulars of income for the year under consideration. As a result, he levied penalty of Rs. 1.48 Crores taking into consideration the addition of Rs. 2 Crores made by the FAA. 4.During the course of hearing before us, Authorised Representative(AR)stated that the Tribunal vide its order dated 17.11.2014 (ITA No. 2320and 4692/Mum/2010-AY 2006-07 & 2007-08) had deleted the addition made by the AO/enhanced by the FAA, that the penalty imposed for the additions would not survive. He referred to page no. 6 & 9 of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, since there is no whisper about the same and further they have accepted that genuineness of receipt of Rs. 3.00 crores from M/s ATC. Hence the 'refundable advance' of Rs. 3.00 crores received by the assessee constitutes capital receipt in the hands of the assessee, which is not liable to tax under any of the provisions of the Act. Further, a perusal of the MOU would show that it was a case of Joint development of land belonging to the assessee and there is no evidence to show that the assessee has parted with the land in favour of M/s ATC. Hence, the question of Capital gains also, in our view, would not arise. Respectfully, following the above, we are deleting the penalty levied for the said amount as. As far as the add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvance amount. We further notice that the AO did not conduct enquiries with any of the prospective buyers to substantiate his views. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that the assessing officer has reached conclusions about the selling rate of plots only on surmises and conjectures without bringing any credible evidence on record. Hence, in our view, there is no case to presume that the assessee had received a portion of advance in cash without accounting the same in its books of account. 19. Even otherwise, we find force in the contentions of Ld A.R that mere receipt of advance would not give rise to any income element. From the explanations furnished before the AO, we notice that the assessee had proposed to execute sa....