ARAVIND KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.(OSD),WARD-1(1), SILIGURI

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant lis seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action imposing section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.1,85,764/- pertaining to alleged bogus long-term capital gain of Aravind Kumar Agarwal Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rs.6,38,778/- adding during the course of assessment framed on 22.09.2017. The Revenue’s case as per both the lower authorities’ detailed discussion is the assessee has been rightly penalized u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act since he himself had surrendered his long-term capital gains claim to be exempt u/s 10(38) as bogus in the above-stated assessment. It therefore emphasizes that the assessee’s said voluntary surrender makes him liable for consequential penalty as well. We see no reason to express our concurrence with the Revenue’s stand. We make it clear that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Reliance Petroproducts’ case 322 ITR 158 (SC) has settled the law that quantum and penalty proceedings stand on different footing and each and every disallowance/addition in the former does not ipso facto attract the latter penal provision. We keep in mind the very distinction and notice that the assessee has filed all the relevant supporting evidence in support of genuineness of this above-stated long-term capital gains derived during the course of scrutiny. That being the case, we find that this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s decision in Smt. Amita Tulsiyan ITA No.1513/Hyd/2018 dated 10.05.2019 holds that such an instance neither amounts to concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271 of the Act. We therefore delete the impugned penalty.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.