Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arose from penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The lower authorities had levied a penalty of Rs. 87,516/- based on alleged bogus long-term capital gains from the sale of shares.
Held
The Tribunal held that the issue of bogus long-term capital gains was debatable and involved subjective appreciation of facts, which does not automatically attract penalty under section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the issue of bogus long-term capital gains is debatable and requires subjective appreciation of facts.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063592683(1), dated 29.03.2024 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have levied the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.87,516/- in Assessing Authority’s order passed on 16th March, 2022 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. Thereby, admittedly held the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of her taxable income relating to the alleged bogus long- term capital gains derived from sale of shares amounting to Rs.7,83,000/- which stood declared during the course of scrutiny at her behest.
Faced with this situation, the Revenue vehemently argues that the impugned penalty in such an instance of bogus long-term capital gains indeed deserves to be upheld. We find no merit in the Revenue’s stand in support of the impugned penalty for the precise reason that the above quantum issue of bogus long-term capital gains is a highly debatable one involving subjective appreciation of the relevant facts which does not automatically attract section 271(1)(c) penalty going by CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). We accordingly accept the assessee’s instant sole