AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 1464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... involved are identical and all the appeals were heard together they are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of brevity. 3. First we shall take up appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 76/Chd/2013 for assessment year 2007-08. 4. In this appeal various grounds have been raised but the only dispute is regarding confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The brief facts of the case are that there were some slums area in city of Chandigarh and with a view to develop such slum areas, Chandigarh Administration floated a scheme in which one room residential flats was to be allotted to poor / some slum dwellers on a monthly license fee. In order to raise funds for the said scheme it was decided to develop Rajiv Gand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le solution of the dispute having regard to its nature. In these circumstances, we feel that the Secretary, Finance may summon both the parties and discuss the matter with them to find out the possible solution, if any." 9. The assessee in the meantime deposited a sum of Rs. 278 crores with the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, a meeting was called on 14.3.2013 which was attended by Member (L&C) CBDT, CIT-I Chandigarh, Chairman CHB, Controller General of Accounts, Joint Secretary (Budget), DCIT(I)(I) Chandigarh, DIT (Systems) - V, Special Secretary (Finance) Chandigarh, CF&AO , CHB, Director (Budget); and ultimately it was observed as under:- "As an amicable view, it may be appropriate tht penalty is not levied on Chandigarh Housing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at no penalty proceeding would be initiated against the Chandigarh Housing Board. However, it is also stated that the decision in this regard can further be taken only by the competent Income Tax authority. Needless to mention that the competent authority shall keep in mind the spirit of the agreement arrived at in 'Record of Discussions'. The parties shall also approach the High Court for disposal of the pending ITA." 11. In view of the above observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the assessee filed an application with Chief Commissioner of Income tax and NWR Chandigarh regarding waiver of penalty (copy of the application is available at pages 28 to 31 of the paper book). The Commissioner in order u/s 273A declined the request ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Hon'ble Supreme Court that no penalty proceedings would be initiated against the Chandigarh Housing Board and decision in this regard would be taken by the competent authority. Mr. Srivastava further states that he has instructions to make a positive statement that the revenue shall not oppose the assessee's prayer for quashing of penalty in the appeal pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Liberty is granted to counsel for the assessee to file an application before the Tribunal for preopening the appeal. In case, such an application is filed, we hope and expect that the appellate authority takes up the appeal for hearing before the end of the year." 14. The reading of the above order particularly along with order passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t related to the issue of taxability of certain receipts out of the sale proceeds of RGCTP and this is an independent issue in which penalty was levied. 20. The assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs. 17,41,935/- on account of consultancy charges which was paid to M/s Feedback Advertisers. According to Assessing Officer the perusal of agreement itself shows that expenditure was incurred for improvement in the work and procedures being deployed by the assessee and, therefore, the Assessing Officer had treated this as capital expenditure and allowed only 25% depreciation. 21. On this background penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, on appeal, penalty was deleted by Ld. CIT(A) by observing that assessee has not concealed any ....