TRADE CENTRE DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

These are two appeals filed by the assessee against orders of the learned CIT(A) Pune-5, Pune in Appeal No. PN/CIT(A)-5/Dy.CIT Cir.7, Pune/206/2014-15 for A.Y. 2001-02 and PN/CIT(A)/Dy. CIT, Cir. 7, Pune/205/2014-15 for A.Y. 2003-04 both dated 30-6-2017.

Shri Rajiv Thakkar, is represented for the assessee and Shri Rajendra B. Dond is represented for the Revenue. & 2312/PUN/2017 2 Trade Centre Developers And Builders Pvt. Ltd. Pune

It was submitted by the learned A.R. that the appeals are against the action of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The learned A.R. drew our attention to the assessment orders for both the assessment years wherein it has been mentioned by the learned A.O. that ”penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”. The learned A.R further drew our attention to Notice issued u/s 274 read with sec. sec. 271 of the Act wherein the learned A.O has underlined “inaccurate particulars of such income”. It was his submission that penalty has been initiated by the A.O for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the assessee. The learned A.R further drew our attention to the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the two assessment years wherein the A.O stated that “in view of the above discussion and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the assessee, without sufficient and reasonable cause, under the deliberate intention concealed it‟s income by furnishing accurate particulars of income has committed default within the meaning of sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act and is liable for penal action”. It was his submission that the penalty has been levied by the A.O for concealment of income. It was submitted by the learned A.R. that in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA‟S Emarald Meadow reported at (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC), as also the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Principal C.I.T. (Cenral) Bangaluru Vs. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P) Ltd. reported at (2020) 113 taxmann.com 574 (Bombay) as also the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in and others dated 19-07-2019, penalty as levied by the A.O and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) was liable to be deleted. & 2312/PUN/2017 3 Trade Centre Developers And Builders Pvt. Ltd. Pune

In reply, the learned D.R has vehemently supported orders of the A.O and the CIT(A). It was his submission that the penalty as confirmed by the learned CIT(A) was liable to be confirmed.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. A perusal of the assessment orders clearly shows that the A.O has initiated the penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. However, the penalty has been levied for concealment of income. Thus, the A.O has initiated penalty for one reason but has levied the penalty for another. Such penalty cannot be confirmed in view of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of SSA‟S Emerald Meadows (supra) as also the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P) Ltd (supra). This being so respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA‟S Emerald Meadows (supra), as also the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P) Ltd (supra) and also decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal cited supra, the penalty levied by the A.O and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) stands deleted.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on this 18th day of February 2020.