DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

आदेश/Order

Per Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member:

The above appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh dated 22.11.2018 relating to assessment year 2012-13, deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’).

ITA No.102/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 2 of 18

Rs.14,87,66,159/- had been made on account of interest

income earned on FDRs made out of funds received by the

assessee for two projects i.e. Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh

Technology Park (RGCTP) project funds and Jawahar Lal

Nehru National Urban Rural Mission( JNNURM) funds as

under:

1) Rs.13,46,51,890/- on account of interest income from RGCTP project funds and JNNURM funds kept in FDRs in bank.

2) Rs.1,41,14,269/- interest earned on RGCTP project kept in FDR’s in escrow account.

Thereafter penalty proceedings were initiated and after giving

due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and considering

the replies filed by it, the AO held that it was a clear case of

concealment of particulars of income and accordingly,

proceeded to levy penalty on the same @ 100% of tax sought to

be evaded amounting to Rs.4,59,68,743/-. The assessee

carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) where he

pleaded that non-disclosure of the said interest income was

under the bonafide belief that the said interest income was

not the income of the assessee at all as the funds on which it

accrued, was believed to be kept by it in the capacity of being

nodal agent of the Government for carrying out the specific

ITA No.102/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 3 of 18

projects for which the funds have been given. That it was only

later that this issue, of the capacity in which funds were

being kept by it, was amicably settled with the department on

the directions of the High Court in a dispute before it, and it

was agreed to treat the interest as income of the assessee

and further agreed that no penalty being levied for non

disclosure of the same. The Ld.CIT(A) was convinced with the

explanation of the assessee and he also took note of the fact

that identical penalty levied in the preceding year had been

deleted by the ITAT. Accordingly, he deleted the penalty levied

for the impugned year also following the same.

appeal before us raising the following grounds:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing appeal of the assessee without appreciating the facts of the case. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the C1T(A) is perverse as it has relied upon the 'record of discussions' held and finalized on 14.03.2013 without considering that the assessee had ample time to revise his return for the incumbent assessment year i.e. 2012-13? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the penalty on account of disallowance of interest expenditure by relying upon the 'record of discussions' which were specific to the assessment year 2007-08? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the penalty order passed by the AO, by relying upon order

ITA No.102/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 4 of 18

dated 30.04.2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was specific only to assessment year 2007-08? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 'record of discussion' which took place on 14.03.2013 and the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30.04.2014 and the Hon'ble High Court on 05.12.2014 can be held to be a relief in perpetuity against all wrong claims made by the assessee under the Income Tax Act? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, a wrong claim made by an assessee and accepted by the assessee during assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) which is against the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Mak Data Private Limited versus CIT (2013] 358 ITR 593? 7. It is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be cancelled and that of the assessing officer may be restored. 8. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard or is disposed off.” 5. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld.DR stated

that her solitary argument against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)

pertained to Ground No.5 raised. She contended that the

dispute amicably settled between the assessee and the

department in 2013 was year specific i.e. it related to the year

i.e. assessment year 2007-08, which was there before the High

Court, and the agreement between the two parties of no

penalty being levied mentioned in the record of discussion did

not apply to other years. The assessee, therefore, it was

contended, was not entitled to any benefit on account of such

ITA No.102/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 5 of 18

agreement between the two parties noted in the record of

discussion.

relied upon the order of the Ld.CIT(A). He further drew our

attention to the order of the ITAT setting aside the order of

the Ld.CIT passed in revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the

Act relating to assessment year 2011-12 on identical issue of

levy of penalty for such year, which the AO had not levied ,on

account of which the Ld.CIT had held the order to be

erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue. The Ld.Counsel

for the assessee, referring to the said order ,stated that for

the said year the ITAT had given a finding on merits that

non-disclosure of interest income earned on the impugned

funds parked in FDRs was under the bonafide belief that the

funds did not belong to the assessee and it was only when the

settlement was reached between the assessee and the

department that the issue was amicably settled and the

assessee had agreed to return the said income as its own

income and that it had also been agreed that no penalty be

levied on the same. He further pointed out that the ITAT had

held the settlement to be issue specific and not year specific .

He accordingly supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A)

ITA No.102/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 6 of 18

We have also gone through the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) at

para 5.2 to 5.5 of the order as under:

“5.2. HELD: I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. Before getting into the factual matrix of the case, it is important to delve into the legal provisions of section 271(1)(c) and the interpretation thereof given by the various courts. The relevant portion of section 271 s reproduced below: '271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person (b) has failed to comply with a notice [under sub-section (2) of section 115WD or under sub-section (2) of section 115 WE or] under sub-section (1) of sectional42 or sub-section (2) of section 143 [or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142], or (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of [such income, or] [(d) has concealed the particulars of the fringe benefits or furnished inaccurate particulars of such fringe benefits. he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty,— (ii) in the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable] by him, a sum of ten thousand rupees] for each such failure; (iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c) or clause (d), in addition to tax, if any, payable] by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed [three times], the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or fringe benefits or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income or fringe benefits. [Explanation 1.—Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act,— (A) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner( Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or

ITA No.102/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 7 of 18

Commissioner to be false, or (B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 5.2.1. For the interpretation of this section the following case laws are relevant: 1. B.A. Balasubramaniam& Bros. Co Vs CIT(116 Taxman 842. 236 ITR 977. 157 CTR 556] With the incorporation of the Explanation to section 271, the view which had been taken earlier in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) no longer held the field and it was for the assessee to discharge the onus as contemplated in the said Explanation. In view of the fact that in the instant case the onus had not been discharged, the High Court judgment called for no interference. The appeals were, accordingly dismissed. 2. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2007) 295 ITR 244] where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under section 276C. 3. CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. [191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/[2010J 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465] where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that If assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law, but is also wholly without any basis and explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, Explanation 1 to section 271{1)(c) would come into play and assessee will be liable to penalty 4. CIT Vs Moser Baer India Ltd. (184 Taxman 8 (SC)/[2009] 315 ITR 460 (SC)/(2009) 222 CTR 213) where Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for wrong adjustment of Unabsorbed Depreciation.

ITA No.102/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 8 of 18

ITA No.102/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 9 of 18

105]where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that if claim made in return of income appears to be ex facie bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and penalty proceeding would be justified 10. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd [184 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 635] where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Confirmed penalty upon assesses for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) because positive income of assessee was reduced to nil after allowing set-off of carried forward losses of earlier years. 11.K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [[2001l 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC}/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)]where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where assessee was unable to furnish evidence for loans and it offered amount of transaction as additional income, Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty u/s271(1)(c) after finding the explanation to be unacceptable and applying Explanation 1(8) of the section. 5.2.2. From the above decisions, it is clear that the determination whether the penalty is leviable or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be brought in to any straight jacket formula. 5.3. Brief facts in the present case are that the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) was designated as Nodal Agency by the Chandigarh Administration for construction of 25728 one room tenements for the slum dwellers at various locations in Chandigarh under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) and development of residential, commercial & other related infrastructure facilities as an integrated project at Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technological Park on the land measuring approximately 123.79 acre. Under the scheme the Central Government and the Chandigarh Administration has provided the funds to the Chandigarh Housing Board for implementation. The land for the construction of these houses has been made available by the Chandigarh Administration, The development agreement was signed between the Chandigarh Administration & the Parsvnath Developers Limited mentioning the status of Chandigarh Housing Board as Nodal Agency and the physical possession was handed over for the development work for RGTCP Project. As per the guidelines issued by the Government of India, the funds may be kept in such a way that these are available for construction of houses as and when required and simultaneously these do not remain idle. Funds were kept in the nationalized banks and

ITA No.102/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 10 of 18

earned interest on the same. The appellant during the year has earned the interest income on FDR's. The AO has made additions of Rs.13,46,51,890/- on account of Interest Income from the RGCTP Project Funds and JNNRUM Funds kept in FDRs in Banks during the relevant assessment year. The addition of Interest Income of Rs. 1.41.14.269/- is related with RGCTP Project (Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park) at Chandigarh on the funds kept in FDRs in Escrow Account. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for addition made during the assessment. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) vide order dated 28.01.2016 in Appeal No. 02/14-15 upheld the additions made by the assessing officer. 5,3.1. After settlement of Income Tax matter by the Secretary Finance, MOF, GOI on 14.03.2013 as per directions of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh dated 21.02.2013 and on the basis of recommendation given by the Department of Expenditure that "As an amicable view, it may be appropriate that Penalty is not levied on Chandigarh Housing Board in respect of the Income Tax dues. In view of the above, your good self is requested that penalty in this regard may not be imposed on this account.11 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in an order dated30.04.2014also reiterated the implementation of above said settlement in an SLP filed by the Income Tax Department and in the process of compliance of the above said settlement through legal process, the Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh has deleted the penalty imposed for the AY 2007-08, AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide order dated 12.01.2015 by holding as under: "14. The reading of the above order particularly along with order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly shows that parties has ultimately reached to an amicable settlement with regard to the taxability of the proceeds received on auction of the plots. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that no penalty proceedings would be initiated. In our opinion in view of the amicable settlement reached and the assurance given before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Court, no penalty could be levied. We feel that this is not a fit case of levy of penalty and accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and delete the penalty." 5.3.2. Even the A.O. has dropped penalty proceedings initiated in A.Y.2010-11 & A.Y.2011-12 on the identical additions made in the assessment orders.

ITA No.102/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 11 of 18

5.4. It is undisputed fact that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court asked both the parties to reach at amicable settlement on 21.2.2013 by passing an interim order wherein it was held that "At the same time, we are of the opinion that there is a possibility of amicable 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." 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); wherein it was decided that "As an amicable view, it may be appropriate that penalty is not levied on Chandigarh Housing Board in respect of the Income Tax Dues. A decision in this regard can however be taken only by the Competent Income Tax Authority or in any appellate proceedings. Hon'ble High Court may consider passing appropriate orders in this regard." Against the interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the Revenue filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed order in SLP No. IA No.2 in SLP(C) No. 5346/13 in CIT vs Chandigarh Housing Board order dated 30.4.2014 as under: ”This special leave petition is filed against an interim order dated 07.05.2012 passed by the High Court in ITA No. 41/12. Since the matter is between the Income Tax Department and the Chandigarh Housing Board, which is a statutory Board under the provisions of Chandigarh Administrative, there was some discussion of an amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties. The 'Record of Discussion' held on 14.05.2013 is placed on record in IA. No. 2 of 2014, A perusal thereof would demonstrate that a sum of Rs. 278 crores, which was deposited by the Chandigarh Housing Board in the Government treasury, is agreed to be adjusted in Income Tax head and it is treated as final in so far as liability of Income Tax is concerned. Having regard to the settlement reached between the parties, it is clear that the dispute regarding payment of tax by the Chandigarh Housing Board to the Income Tax Department stands resolved. It is further agreed that 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

ITA No.102/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 12 of 18

shall also approach the High Court for disposal of the pending ITA.” 5.4.1 By considering the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the assessee filed an application with Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, NWR, Chandigarh regarding waiver of penalty. The Commissioner in order u/s 273A of the Act declined the request by mainly observing that no settlement has been reached between the assessee and Department. Against the above order the assessee filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Hon'ble High Court ultimately passed the following order:- "Mr. G.C. Srivastava appearing for the revenue states, on instructions, that a compromise effected before the Secretary, Finance, Union of India, was reduced into writing and is titled as 'Record of Discussion'. Mr. Srivastava further states, on instructions, that observation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 30.04.2014 passed in IA No. 2 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5346 of 2013 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board) recording that dispute regarding payment of tax by the Chandigarh Housing Board stands resolved, is correct. Mr. Srivastava also states that it is correct that it was agreed before 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." 5.4.2. It is reiterated that in these facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench has decided to delete the penalty on similar grounds for AY 2007-08, AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 by holding that the reading of the above order particularly along with order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly shows that parties have ultimately reached to an amicable settlement with regard to the taxability of the proceeds received on auction of the plots. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 30.04.2014 has clearly observed that no penalty proceedings would be initiated.

ITA No.102/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 13 of 18

5.5. The major issue on which addition has been made in the AY 2012-13 is "Disallowance of Interest at Rs.14,87,66,159/-". After discussing the entire gamut of facts in the preceedings paras, I am of the considered opinion that AO was not right in levying penalty. It is the same issue on which 'Record of Discussions' was made after directions of the Hon'ble High Court and subsequently the same were upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated30.04.2014.Keeping in mind the spirit of the agreement arrived at in 'Record of Discussions' penalty levied by the AO is cancelled. The Grounds of Appeal No.1 is allowed.” 8. On going through the order of the Ld.CIT(A) we do not

find any infirmity in the same. The facts relating to the issue,

as stand recorded in the order of the Ld.CIT(A), and not

disputed, are that the taxability of the interest income earned

on the funds received by the assessee from the Chandigarh

administration and the Central government for specific

projects. i.e. RGCTP & JNNRUM, on which penalty has been

levied for non disclosure in the present case, was always

disputed by the assessee right from A.Y 2007-08 when it first

accrued, claiming the funds to be in its possession only as a

nodal agent of the government for execution of the projects.

That the dispute travelled to the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab

and Haryana who asked the parties to settle it amicably,

which was accordingly resolved on 21-02-2013,noted in

Record of Discussion, when the assessee agreed to pay taxes

on the same treating it as its income. That it was also agreed

between the parties to be appropriate that no penalty be levied

on the assessee ,though a final decision in this regard was left

ITA No.102/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 14 of 18

with the competent authority. That The matter went up to the

Hon’ble Supreme court in an SLP against the interim order of

the High Court, who took note of the entire facts of the case

and added that the competent authority should take note of

the spirit of agreement between the two parties. That

subsequently an application filed by the assessee for waiver

of penalty was rejected by the competent authority against

which the assessee went in appeal to the High court where the

Counsel appearing for the Revenue conceded that it was

agreed by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme court that

no penalty proceedings would be initiated against the assessee

and that he had instructions to make a positive statement

that the Revenue would not oppose the assesses prayer for

quashing penalty in appeal pending before the ITAT.

That considering the aforestated facts regarding agreement

between the parties for no levy of penalty on settlement of the

dispute,which was approved by the hon’be apex court, the

ITAT deleted penalty levied u/s 271(1)© of the Act, for non

disclosure of the said interest income in A.Y 2007-08, 2008-09

and 2009-10.

the Ld.Pr.CIT directing levy of penalty on identical interest

income earned during the year ,passed in exercise of his

ITA No.102/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 15 of 18

revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act, was set aside by the

ITAT considering the aforestated facts and further holding

that the agreement for no levy of penalty was not year specific

but was issue related and applied to all years affected by it,

i.e. till the resolution of the dispute noted in the Record of

settlement dated 14-03-2013. That in any case the non

disclosure of the interest income, till the settlement of the

dispute, was under a bonafide belief of the same not belonging

to the assessee and hence not taxable. The relevant findings

of the ITAT at para 24-27 of the order are as under:

“24. It is not disputed that in the impugned year also penalty proceedings were initiated on the same addition made of interest on FDR’s, in the same facts as circumstances, as in A.Y 2007-08 to A.Y 2009-10 and A.Y 2012-13 and A.Y 2013-14 as mentioned above. In view of the fact that in all those years penalty levied was deleted by the ITAT/CIT(A), considering the backdrop of the case as stated above, we have no hesitation in holding that the A.O’s view that no penalty was leviable for the impugned year i.e. A.Y 2011-12, was a plausible view and not out-rightly incorrect as canvassed by the Revenue/Pr.CIT. That the Department has contested the deletion of penalty by the I.T.A.T. in assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 is, we hold, wholly irrelevant for the conclusion that the view of the A.O. was a plausible view. The Department is well within its rights to contest any order as legally permissible, but merely by so contesting it does not make the orders challenged as being wholly untenable in law. 25. Even otherwise, on considering the entire facts of the case, we hold that the interpretation of fact by the A.O. that the issue was identical to A.Y 2007- 08, was correct. In A.Y 2007-08 the penalty had been deleted on the basis of agreement between the

ITA No.102/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 16 of 18

assessee and the department, as recorded in the ROD, to not levy penalty. This agreement, we hold, was applicable to the impugned year also. The reason being, the agreement was regarding the issue whether the assessee was a nodal agency of Chandigarh Administration or not. This is evident from the order of the Hon'ble High Court where the question of law framed was vis a vis this issue/aspect only and it was this aspect which was directed by the Hon’ble High Court to be amicably settled by agreement. The agreement therefore for levy of no penalty was to be read in relation to that issue. Meaning thereby that the parties had agreed to no penalty being levied on account of any default committed by the assessee by treating itself as a nodal agency hithertofore. Thus all incomes not returned to tax by the assessee before the date of agreement, on account of treating itself the nodal agency of Chandigarh administration was agreed not to be penalized. The agreement we hold was not year specific, as held by the Ld.Pr.CIT, but was issue specific and applied to all years effected by the issue. The return for the impugned year, not disclosing interest income from FDR’s claiming itself as nodal agency of Chandigarh administration, was filed well before the date of agreement, being filed on 29-09-10 while the agreement was recorded in the ROD on 14-03-13.Thus the agreement for no penalty applied to the impugned year also and the AO we hold had therefore rightly held that the facts of the impugned year were identical to that in A.Y 2007-08,while dropping the penalty proceedings initiated. 26. Even otherwise, we hold, that the claim of the assessee that the interest income was not taxable in its hands, was based on a bonafide belief that the funds invested in FDR’s did not belong to it and were collected by it as a nodal agency of the Chandigarh administration. This stand was consistently taken by the assessee and was conceded only by amicable settlement with the department on taking a prima facie view of the matter. It is not that the claim was found outrightly untenable by any authority. Therefore till the date of settlement of the dispute the claim of the assessee was undoubtedly under a bonafide belief. In view of the same therefore the assessee could not be

ITA No.102/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 17 of 18

charged with having concealed or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act. 27. We therefore hold that the order passed by the AO dropping penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)© of the Act was not erroneous and the order passed by the Ld.Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act is therefore set aside. The facts of the present case ,we find ,are identical ,with that

of A.Y 2007-08 to 2011-12, penalty having been levied on

identical income of interest earned on FDR’s made from the

same specific purpose funds ,i.e RGCTP and JNNRUM, And

relates to A.Y 2012-13, which is prior to the settlement of

the dispute on 14-03-2013. The decision rendered by the ITAT

in the preceding years therefore, deleting the penalty levied by

holding that the agreement to levy no penalty would apply

,that the non disclosure of the interest income was under a

bonafide belief that it was non taxable,would squarely apply

in the present case also. The argument of the Ld.DR that the

settlement of the dispute was year specific merits no

consideration as we find that the ITAT had categorically held

in its order passed for A.Y 2010-11 & 2011-12 that the

settlement was issue specific and not year specific and

applied to all interest incomes not returned upto the date of

settlement.

ITA No.102/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 18 of 18

Order pronounced on 23 rd July, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/- (R.L. NEGI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �याय�क सद�य/Judicial Member Dated: 23rd July, 2021 *रती* आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकरआयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय��त�न�ध, आयकरअपील�यआ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड�फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानुसार/ By order,