TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1316
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n exemption under s.11 & 12 of the Act to the income/loss generated by the assessee from the activity of promoting the game of cricket and hosting cricket tournaments. 3. For the purposes of appreciating the facts, we shall first take up Revenue's appeal in ITA No.999/Ahd/2017 concerning AY 2009-10 as a lead case, wherein the Revenue raised the following effective ground of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,25,31,670/- levied by the A.O. u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee is stated to be an AOP (Trust) engaged in the activity of promoting the game of cricket. It filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 in question declaring total income in the negative at Rs.(-)1,57,21,610/- and thereafter filed the revised return on 31/03/2011 showing revised total income in negative at Rs.(-) 4,50,00,000/-. The assessment was finalized under s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act determining total income in positive at Rs. 5,67,32,540/-. The Assessing Officer alleged that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has wrongly claimed exemption under s.11 & 12 of the Act w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03/2011, the changes that were brought out with retrospective effect did not exist. Further appellant has also argued before the A.O. that where a debatable, controversial or debatable deduction is claimed, the claim cannot said to be false. Otherwise it would become impossible for any Assessee to raise any claim or deduction which might be debatable. Therefore, according to appellant, penal provisions would not be applicable for such claims. However, A.O. has not accepted the arguments of the appellant and has proceeded to levy penalty u/s.271(1 )(c) of the Act. 7. During the appellate proceedings appellant has relied upon the decision of CIT v/s. Yahoo India (P) Ltd. (2013) 33 taxmann.com 332 (Bombay HC) on the issue of retrospective amendment and how penal provisions are not applicable. Further with regard to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the appellant submitted that A.O. has not pointed out that the information submitted was wrong. Regarding the claim made by the appellant it has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Reliance Petroproducts P.Ltd. 230 CTR 320. Further, it has also relied upon th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A) accordingly reversed the action of the Assessing Officer and deleted penalty on erroneous claim of exemption under s.11&12 of the Act. 6. The Revenue has impugned the aforesaid action of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld.DR for the Revenue, relied upon the penalty order of the Assessing Officer and contended that the activities of the association are in the nature of trade and commerce in the category referred to in proviso to section 2 (15) and thus the assessee has made wrong claim of exemption under s.11 & 12 of the Act and consequently liable for penalty under s.271(1)(c) of the Act as a remedy for the loss of possible revenue. 8. The Ld.AR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and pointed out that the exclusion provided under s.13(8) to deny exemption under s.11 & 12 of the Act has been inserted by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01/04/2009. It was thus submitted that without prejudice to all other submissions, the assessee cannot be charged with any defiance of law per se when the section 13(8) itself was not in existence at the time of filing of the return of income and was enacted with retrospective effect at a later ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her an assessee can be imputed with clairvoyance where some amendment has been brought with retrospective effect whereby tax liability is sought to be imposed on assessee. In the instant case, section 13(8) of the Act has been enacted by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01/04/2009. As per aforesaid enactment, benefit of section 11 & 12 will not be available to the assessee where such assessee is in receipt of income which falls under proviso to clause (15) of section 2 of the Act. Admittedly, the aforesaid amendment seeking to deny benefit of s.11 to the assessee was not in existence at the time of filing of return of income. 9.3. The law in this regard is loud and clear. In CIT vs. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (2000) 160 CTR(SC) 8 : (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) in the context of applicability of the provisions of section 28(iiib) of the Act, the Apex Court quoted. "An assessee cannot be imputed with clairvoyance. When the return was filed, the assessee could not possibly have known that the decision on the basis of which cash compensatory support had been claimed as not amounting to the assessee's income ceased to be operative by reason of retrospecti....