COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ASIA GREENS LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 6. ITA 969/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mrs. P.L. Bansal, Adv. versus . ASIA GREENS LTD ..... Respondent Through: None . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . O R D E R 30.07.2010 CM 12869/2010 . This is an application for delay in re-filing the appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Regard being had to the averments made in the application, delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. ITA 969/2010 Calling in question the justifiability of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ?A? (for short ?the tribunal?) in ITA No. 1172/Del/2007 pertaining to assessment year 2001-2002, the present appeal has been preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ?the Act?). ITA 969/2010 Page 1 of 3 The assessee was proceeded under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and eventually a penalty amounting to Rs.11,01,764/- was imposed on the ground that assessee had shown Rs.60,35,750/- as agricultural income which was disallowed by . . the assessing officer and on an appeal being preferred, the CIT(A) reduced it to Rs.30 lacs. After the disposal of the appeal relating to the quantum in the penalty proceedings, the assessee offered an explanation which was found to be bona fide by the tribunal. Be it noted, the tribunal in the order impugned has referred to the order passed by CIT(A) on the quantum of appeal and held as under: . ?16. On reading the aforesaid Tribunal?s order, it is seen that the fact that assessee has undertaken agricultural operation has not been disputed. The dispute was only with regard to the quantum of the agricultural income earned by the assessee. The amount of agricultural income shown by assessee to Rs.60,36,750/- has been found to be excessive incurred by the assessee. The Tribunal has also observed that assessee?s claim regarding the scope of agricultural operation and income is not fully supported by any acceptable evidence or material. But there is no finding that the assessee has made a false claim or the amount of agricultural income shown by the assessee was earned from any other source or soruces but falsely shown under the head ?agricultural income?. It is the case where assessee?s claim has been rejected by drawing a reasonable presumptions and . ITA 969/2010 Page 2 of 3 . inferences, and not by establishing and proving that the assessee?s explanation was false. We, therefore, hold that it is not a fit case where penalty can be levied u/s 271(1)(c) in as much as the assessee has given a bonafide explanation regarding the scope of extent of agricultural income through might not have been accepted by the department for want of conclusive and sufficient evidences.? . In our considered opinion, the view expressed by the tribunal is totally in the realm of facts and it cannot be said that acceptance of the explanation offered by the assessee would tantamount to any kind of perversity in delineation of the issue. Thus, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same stands dismissed in limine. . . . CHIEF JUSTICE . . . MANMOHAN, J JULY 30, 2010 pk . . . . . . ITA 969/2010 Page 3 of 3