TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11-12. 3. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law : "i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1962 ? And ii. Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is right by holding that furnishing of income under incorrect head and consequential short payment of taxes does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income ?" 4. The short question, which falls for consideration, is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee and overturning the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....did not contain the particulars of income alleged to have been concealed by the assessee. Apart from that, various other explanation was given with regard to the factual aspects pointing out as to how the penalty proceedings could not have been invoked merely because additions have been made in the quantum assessment and that the Assessing Officer had to prove that there was a concealment of income or the returns of income furnished by the assessee or the documents submitted by the assessee during scrutiny proceedings were based on incorrect facts, falsity and untruth. In support of their contention, the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N.Shrof Vs. JCIT [reported in (2007) 291 ITR 519] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may arrive at. To say the least, the order passed by the CIT(A) is devoid of reasons. 9. The order passed by the CIT(A) further shows that at the first instance, the assessee raised a preliminary objection with regard to the defective penalty notice dated 06.3.2017. The assessee contended that the said notice dated 06.3.2017 did not contain any particulars of income alleged to have been concealed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in paragraph 6 of the penalty order dated 28.3.2017, extracted the relevant portion of the show cause notice dated 06.3.2017, a reading of which shows that it did not contain any particulars of income alleged to have been concealed by the assessee. Though such a contention was raised, the Assessing Officer d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt stating that the assessee's conduct was deliberate. This would be sufficient to set aside the order passed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, in our considered view, examined the conduct of the assessee. 11. The assessee, who is a salaried employee, had disclosed the value of the stock appreciation rights and gain thereof and claimed the same as capital gain. However, the Assessing Officer treated the gain as a revenue receipt and levied tax. In such circumstances, whether it could have been stated that there was concealment of income or whether the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In our considered view, the Tribunal rightly held that it is nobody's case that the assessee concealed the allotment of stock appreciat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... needs to be bonafide and if the claim, besides being incorrect in law, is malafide, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1) of the Act would come into play and work to the disadvantage of the assessee. We find from the facts in the case before us that there is no mala fide established by the Revenue against the assessee nor can we state that the conduct of the assessee is lacking in bona fide. Furthermore, in the decision in the case of Zoom Communication (P) Limited, the Court found that there was no difference of opinion as regards disallowance of the expenses and the incorrect computation given by the assessee. However, on facts, in the present case before us, we find that there had been two opinions or there had been difference of opinion bet....