TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n appeal No. CIT(A)/GNR/166/2017-18 in the case of Shri Manankumar Manilal Patel. In both the case the penalty levied at Rs. 84,11,392/- by the assessing officer. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty and revenue has challenged both the order of "the Ld. CIT(A) by filling the appeal. 2. The issue in both the appeal is same and common and thus, disposed of with this common order by taking the lead case of Shri Maulik Manilal Patel, in ITA No. 2055/AHD/2018 and the facts and contention of this case is discussed accordingly here in below. 3. In the lead case of Shri Maulik Manilal Patel revenue has taken up the following grounds: i) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in deleting the penalty levied of Rs. 84,11,393/- u/s. 271(1)(c) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee is regarding redemption of Deep Discount Bonds and the transaction is not routed through stock exchange and question of payment of STT does not arise. Thus, it is clear that the assessee had not paid any STT on the transaction. As such it is noticed that the condition provided u/s 10(38) that STT should have been paid to claim exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act has not been fulfilled by the assessee. Therefore, placing all these facts the AO has disallowed the claim of the assessee that it is not covered by the provision of section 10(38) and hold that the gain is chargeable to tax and thus, the same was added in the income of the assessee. For this addition the assessing officer mentioned in his order that "Penalty proceedings are initi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntention and the decisions relied upon. The brief final decision of "the Ld. CIT(A)" is that the assessee has considered the income arising out of the redemption of deep Discount bonds as capital gains, declared the amount in his return of income and claimed as exemption u/s 10 (38) of the Act. The AO has taken a view that looking to the fact of the gain arising out of the SSNNL is not a capital gain which is exempted u/s 10(38) but an income chargeable to tax which is not disputed by either party. The "the Ld. CIT(A)" following the contention of the assessee that the assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income and relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. reported i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....There is a plethora of judgements which take the same view. In a recent judgement the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of PCIT Vs. Torrent Pharmaceuticals in Tax Appeal No. 208 of 2017 dated 03/04/2017, has also taken the same view relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Tips Industries Pvt. Ltd. Considering the details discussion above and the decision cited (supra) on this issue, I am of the view that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was not justified and is deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed." 6. Aggrieved from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals, Gandhinagar department has filed this appeal. 7. The learned DR has vehemently argued in detailed raising various conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee on this point and therefore he has relied upon that argument and stated the same is maintainable based on the detailed finding of the assessing officer. 10. The learned AR appearing on behalf of the assessee alternatively contended that even on merits this appeal is not maintainable as there is no dispute about the amount of income chargeable to tax and it is mere the bona fide belief while filing the return of income that the investment was very old and the same was only offered as capital gain and claimed as exempt and the contention of the department is that, this claim made u/s. 10(38) is not allowable. Thus, so far as income is considered it remain same and it is mere disallowance of claim only. This itself clear that t....