Ita/34/2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh v. M/S Swami Vivekanand Educational Society, Huda, Jagadhri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHSr. No. 109ITA No. 34 of 2018 (O&M)Date of decision : 14.05.2018The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions),Chandigarh..... Appellant VERSUS M/s Swami Vivekanand Educationalsociety, HUDA, Jagadhri ..... Respondent CORAMHON;BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDALHON;BLE MR. JUSTICE DEBEEPAK SIB Present+Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant, RAJESH BINDAL, J: Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 21.11.2016, passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench, Chandigarh (forShort the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 876/Chd/2014. The appeal pertains to theassessment year 2005-06 and seeks to raise the following substantialquestions of law: - “(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law theHon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty byaccepting assessee’s claim that plausible enoughHon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty byaccepting assessee’s claim that plausible enough explanation had been given during the assessmentproceedings whereas the appellant authorities upto theITAT level had confirmed the addition made by the AO onaccount of capital gain u/s 11 (1A) of the Act, 1961?proceedings whereas the appellant authorities upto theITAT level had confirmed the addition made by the AO onaccount of capital gain u/s 11 (1A) of the Act, 1961? (41) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law theHon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty whereasthe Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed findings regardingconcealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars. ofincome?Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty whereasthe Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed findings regardingconcealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars. ofincome? (111) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law theHon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty byapplying the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court inthe case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. whereas inthe present case the claim of the assessee was held to beunsustainable up to the Hon'ble ITAT?” The respondent-assessee which is a registered charitable trusthad transferred two of its properties to its sister charitable trusts which arealso duly registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forShort the 'Act’). Disclosure thereof was made in the returns filed. However,the departmental authorities treated such transfers to be transfer of assetsresulting in levy of capital gain. The present appeal pertains to levy ofpenalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, alleging concealment of income. The Tribunal found that there was a full disclosure of factsregarding transfer of properties by the respondent-assessee in favour of twoof its duly registered charitable sister trusts, hence, penalty under Section271(1)(c) of the Act was not leviable. In the impugned order it hasspecifically been recorded by the Tribunal that the revenue has not beenable to produce any material on record to show that the assets weretransferred for any consideration either received or receivable by theassessee. With the aforesaid facts on record the Tribunal has taken a viewthat it was not a case of deliberate concealment of income by the assessee,hence, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not leviable.Reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in -3- Commissioner of Income TaxVS.Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.12010(322) ITR 158 SC, In view of the above factual matrix, we do not find that any question of law much less any substantial question of law arises in thepresent appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay in|filing and retfiling the appeal are also dismissed }RAJESH BINDAL |) JUDGE 14.05.2018shamsher Whether speaking/reasonedWhether reportable | DEEPAK SIBAL |JUDGE +Yes / No: Yes / No