TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... / or withdraw any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary." 2. Briefly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of finance and investment activity, letting and subletting of premises and trading in shares and securities etc. had e-filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 26.11.2014, declaring an income of Rs. 1,20,83,370/-. Thereafter, the assessee had filed a revised return of income on 14.12.2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,74,75,865/-.The return of income filed by the assessee was initially processed as such u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had initially in its original return of income, inter alia, offered its rental receipts under the head "Income from house property". However, as observed by the A.O, the assessee subsequent to the selection of its case for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act had revised its return of income on 14.12.2015 and offered the rental receipts for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tax during AY 2014-15. Once case was selected for scrutiny, assessee revised its return of income. Assessee filed revised return not to make correct of any omission or any wrong statement as allowed by section 139(5) of Income tax Act, 1961, but to correct malafide action of evading taxes." In the backdrop of his aforesaid deliberations, the A.O vide is order u/s 143(3) dated 27.12.2016 assessed the income of the assessee company at Rs. 1,74,71,865/-, as against its original returned income of Rs. 1,20,83,370/-. At the time of culmination of the assessment proceedings, the A.O alleging concealment of income by the assessee qua offering of the rental receipts under a wrong head of income had initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Subsequently, the A.O holding a conviction that the assessee had sought to evade taxes by offering the rental receipts in its original return of income under a wrong head of income i.e 'house property', therein, called upon it to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income may not be imposed on it. In reply, the assessee tried to impress upon the A.O that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was called for i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 29.06.2017 before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) not finding favor with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the penalty imposed by the A.O and dismissed the appeal. 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'A.R') for the assessee took us through the relevant facts of the case. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee backed by a bonafide belief had in its original return of income offered the rental receipts under the head 'house property'. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that as advised by its counsel that a deviation from the consistent offering of the rental receipts for tax under the head 'business income' in the immediately preceding years was not suggested, that the assessee had filed a revised return of income. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the assessee on a suo motto basis by filing a revised return of income had offered the rental receipts under the head 'business income', therefore, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could have validly been imposed. 7. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied on the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and alleging an attempt on its part to suppress its income and evade taxes by offering the rental receipts under a wrong head of income i.e 'house property' had imposed penalty of Rs. 17,48,297/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal, the CT(A) had upheld the penalty imposed by the A.O u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. We have deliberated at length on the issue in hand, and are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the lower authorities. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the rental receipts in question were dully disclosed by the assessee in its original return of income for the year under consideration. As the rental receipts in the immediately preceding year i.e A.Y. 2013-14 were offered by the assessee for tax under the head 'business income', therefore, as stated by the assessee, having been advised by its tax consultant that deviation from the aforesaid course of action and offering of the rental receipts for tax during the year under the head 'house property' was not suggested, it had filed a revised return of income wherein the rental receipts were offered for tax under the head 'business income'. In the backdrop of the afores....