ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-3(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. M/S. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, DELHI

ITA 5742/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Oxford University Press, which filed its income tax return declaring itself a domestic company and was taxed accordingly. However, the Assessing Officer later reclassified the company as a non-resident, leading to a higher tax rate and the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, finding that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars, a decision which the Revenue appealed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the debatable nature of the residential status and the consistent treatment of the company as a resident in previous years under protest.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32117 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961, Company Act 2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KRISHNA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL CHARKHA
• Keywords: Rule of consistency; Residential status
• Section: 147; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 5742/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asst. CIT (International Taxation)-3(2)(2), R. No. 615, Sixth Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai-400051. Vs. M/s Oxford University Press, 22 Workspace 2nd floor, 1/22 Asaf Ali Road, Daryaganj Central, Delhi, Delhi-110002. PAN NO. AAACO 3279 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rahul Charkha Revenue by : Mr. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28/01/2025 Date of pronouncement : 31/01/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 57, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for AY 2015-16 , in relation to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) levied by the Assessing Officer. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of INR 1,28,46,270 levied under Section furnishing v inaccurate particulars of income as per the provision of Company Act 2013 effective from 01.04.2014. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levying of penalty furnishing inaccurate particulars when assessee himself submitted tax resident certificate (TRC) issued by the HM Revenue & Customs, UK confirmed that the assessee is Tax resident for the purpose of UK nonresident for India 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levying of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars when assessee himself submitted annual accounts in which auditors remarked that pursuant to the comme branch is covered under the definition of a foreign company as defined under section 2(42) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2014.The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be ne 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 01.04.2016 declaring total income of Rs.12,84,62,680/-. The return of income filed by the assessee in the capacity of a domestic the tax at the rate of branch office, of Oxford Press, UK the return should have been filed in the Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopene u/s 148 of the Act dated 07.03.2020. In response the assessee filed return of income and assessment u/s 147 of the Act was completed on 17.09.2021 wherein the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the M/s Oxford University Press ITA No. 5742/MUM/2024 t ‘the Act’) levied by the Assessing Officer. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of INR 1,28,46,270 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing v inaccurate particulars of income as per the provision of Company Act 2013 effective from 01.04.2014. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levying of penalty furnishing inaccurate particulars when assessee himself submitted tax resident certificate (TRC) issued by the HM Revenue & Customs, UK confirmed that the assessee is Tax resident for the purpose of UK-India tax Treaty and thus nonresident for India hether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levying of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars when assessee himself submitted annual accounts in which auditors remarked that pursuant to the commencement of Companies Act 2013, the branch is covered under the definition of a foreign company as defined under section 2(42) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2014.The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary, Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 01.04.2016 declaring total income of . The return of income filed by the assessee in the capacity of a domestic company (i.e. Resident status) at the rate of 30% of the total income. The assessee being office, of Oxford Press, UK according to the Assessing Officer the return should have been filed in the status of non he case of the assessee was reopened by way of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 07.03.2020. In response the assessee filed return of income and assessment u/s 147 of the Act was completed on 17.09.2021 wherein the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the M/s Oxford University Press 2 ITA No. 5742/MUM/2024 t ‘the Act’) levied by the Assessing Officer. The grounds raised Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of INR 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing v inaccurate particulars of income as per the provision of Company Act 2013 effective from 01.04.2014. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levying of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars when assessee himself submitted tax resident certificate (TRC) issued by the HM Revenue & Customs, UK confirmed that the assessee is Tax India tax Treaty and thus hether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levying of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars when assessee himself submitted annual accounts in which auditors remarked that ncement of Companies Act 2013, the branch is covered under the definition of a foreign company as defined under section 2(42) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2014.The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any cessary, Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 01.04.2016 declaring total income of . The return of income filed by the assessee in company (i.e. Resident status) and paid . The assessee being according to the Assessing Officer of non-resident. d by way of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 07.03.2020. In response the assessee filed return of income and assessment u/s 147 of the Act was completed on 17.09.2021 wherein the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for furnishing ina income. The Assessing Officer levied penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded which was worked out to Rs.1,48,26,270/ way of impugned penalty order. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty observing as under: “5.3 The facts recorded & finding of the AO in the penalty order and the submission made by the appellant has been considered. The facts of the case of the appellant are that the Return of income was filed on 01.04.2016 declaring total income of Rs.12,84,62,680/ in the capacity of domestic company and offered tax @ 30%. In the re status of the appellant company as non taxed the income @ 40% instead of 30% offered by the appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed a submission on various aspects of levy of penalt u/s.271(1)(c). The appellant has filed a lengthy submission covering all aspects of penalty u/s.271(1)(c). However, the submission of the appellant regarding (i) penalty in respect of inaccurate claim, (ii) penalty for misrepresentation or suppression provisions not to be strictly construed, etc. are not relevant to the facts of the case of the appellant. The AO has levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO has referred to explanation 1(A) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As per explanation 1(A), if a person fails to offer an explanation or explanation offered is found to be false by the AO or an explanation is not substantiated by the assessee and fails to prove that such explanation was bonafide and all the facts material to computation of total income has been disclosed, then the amount added or disallowed in M/s Oxford University Press ITA No. 5742/MUM/2024 Act were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income. The Assessing Officer levied penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded which was worked out to Rs.1,48,26,270/ way of impugned penalty order. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty observing 5.3 The facts recorded & finding of the AO in the penalty order and the submission made by the appellant has been considered. The facts of the case of the appellant are that the Return of income was filed on 01.04.2016 declaring total income of Rs.12,84,62,680/- for AY.2015-16. The Return was filed in the capacity of domestic company and offered tax @ 30%. In the re- assessment order, the AO considered status of the appellant company as non- resident and taxed the income @ 40% instead of 30% offered by the During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed a submission on various aspects of levy of penalt u/s.271(1)(c). The appellant has filed a lengthy submission covering all aspects of penalty u/s.271(1)(c). However, the submission of the appellant regarding (i) penalty in respect of inaccurate claim, (ii) penalty for misrepresentation or suppression of facts, (iii) penalty provisions not to be strictly construed, etc. are not relevant to the facts of the case of the appellant. The AO has levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO has referred to explanation 1(A) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As per explanation 1(A), if a person fails to offer an explanation or explanation offered is found to be false by the AO or an explanation is not substantiated by the assessee and fails to prove that such explanation was bonafide and all the facts relating to the same are and material to computation of total income has been disclosed, then the amount added or disallowed in M/s Oxford University Press 3 ITA No. 5742/MUM/2024 ccurate particulars of the income. The Assessing Officer levied penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded which was worked out to Rs.1,48,26,270/- by On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty observing 5.3 The facts recorded & finding of the AO in the penalty order and the submission made by the appellant has The facts of the case of the appellant are that the Return of income was filed on 01.04.2016 declaring total income of 16. The Return was filed in the capacity of domestic company and offered tax @ t order, the AO considered resident and taxed the income @ 40% instead of 30% offered by the During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed a submission on various aspects of levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c). The appellant has filed a lengthy submission covering all aspects of penalty u/s.271(1)(c). However, the submission of the appellant regarding (i) penalty in respect of inaccurate claim, (ii) penalty for of facts, (iii) penalty provisions not to be strictly construed, etc. are not relevant to the facts of the case of the appellant. The AO has levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO has referred to explanation 1(A) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As per explanation 1(A), if a person fails to offer an explanation or explanation offered is found to be false by the AO or an explanation is not substantiated by the assessee and fails to prove that such explanation was relating to the same are and material to computation of total income has been disclosed, then the amount added or disallowed in computing total income of such person deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. The initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The AO has also levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The issue regarding fu inaccurate particulars of income is with respect to residential status of the appellant company; resident or non-resident. The AO has referred to explanation 1(A) to section 271(1)(c), it does not imply that the levy of penalty was in respec income. Mere reference to explanation 1(A) to section 271(1)(c) does not invalidate the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The facts of the case of the appellant fo 2015-16 are that from AY.1994 CBDT’s order dated 31.07.1994 held the company as Non-resident in India. From AY.1995 assessment order mentioned the status of the company as Resident. The position AY.2004-05, the appellant filed the Return of income in the capacity of non order, the AO considered the status as Resident and initiated penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings were dropped by the AO. On 19.07.2006, the appellant company accepted the status of company as resident in India, under protest, w.e.f. 1995 2013-14, the AO considered the appellant company as resident. However, for AY.2015 Return of income in the capacity of resident in India, which was accepted in order u/s.143(3). However, in the order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(3), the status was considered as non levied penalty u/s.2 The facts show that the appellant has been consistently filing Return of income in the capacity of non From AY.1995 the status of the appellant as resident instead of non resident. For income as non M/s Oxford University Press ITA No. 5742/MUM/2024 computing total income of such person deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. The fact remains that the AO has initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The AO has also levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The issue regarding furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is with respect to residential status of the appellant company; resident or resident. The AO has referred to explanation 1(A) to section 271(1)(c), it does not imply that the levy of penalty was in respect of concealment of particulars of that income. Mere reference to explanation 1(A) to section 271(1)(c) does not invalidate the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of The facts of the case of the appellant for AYs.1994 16 are that from AY.1994-95, the AO relying upon CBDT’s order dated 31.07.1994 held the company as resident in India. From AY.1995-96, the AO in the assessment order mentioned the status of the company as Resident. The position continued till AY.2003 05, the appellant filed the Return of income in the capacity of non-resident, however, in the assessment order, the AO considered the status as Resident and initiated penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings were dropped by the AO. On 19.07.2006, the appellant company accepted the status of company as resident in India, under protest, w.e.f. 1995-96. For AYs.2012 14, the AO considered the appellant company as resident. However, for AY.2015-16, the appellant filed Return of income in the capacity of resident in India, which was accepted in order u/s.143(3). However, in the order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(3), the status was considered as non-resident by the AO and hence the AO levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts show that the appellant has been consistently filing Return of income in the capacity of non- From AY.1995-96 onwards, the AO has been considering the status of the appellant as resident instead of non resident. For AY.2004-05, the appellant filed Return of income as non-resident. The AO in the assessment order M/s Oxford University Press 4 ITA No. 5742/MUM/2024 computing total income of such person deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have fact remains that the AO has initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The AO has also levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of furnishing of inaccurate rnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is with respect to residential status of the appellant company; resident or resident. The AO has referred to explanation 1(A) to section 271(1)(c), it does not imply that the levy of penalty t of concealment of particulars of that income. Mere reference to explanation 1(A) to section 271(1)(c) does not invalidate the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of r AYs.1994-95 to 95, the AO relying upon CBDT’s order dated 31.07.1994 held the company as 96, the AO in the assessment order mentioned the status of the company continued till AY.2003-04. For 05, the appellant filed the Return of income in the resident, however, in the assessment order, the AO considered the status as Resident and initiated penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings were dropped by the AO. On 19.07.2006, the appellant company accepted the status of company as resident in 96. For AYs.2012-13 and 14, the AO considered the appellant company as llant filed Return of income in the capacity of resident in India, which was accepted in order u/s.143(3). However, in the order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(3), the status was resident by the AO and hence the AO The facts show that the appellant has been consistently -resident. 96 onwards, the AO has been considering the status of the appellant as resident instead of non- 05, the appellant filed Return of resident. The AO in the assessment order considered the status of the appellant as resident and initiated penalty proceedings. However, the penalty proceedings were dropped by the AO. On 19.07.2006, appellant, under protest, filed a letter to the AO accepting its status as resident in India w.e.f. 1995 not rejected the letter filed by the appellant. For AY.2015 16, the appellant filed status of the company as resident, which was acc the Act, however, in the order u/s.147 of the Act, the AO changed the status of the company from resident to non resident and taxed the income @ 40% instead of 30% offered by the appellant. Penalty for AY.2015 levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of residential status of the company. The appellant has submitted that during the re the AO was informed about the letter dated 19.07.2016 that under prot of the company as resident in India and filed Return of income in the capacity of resident in India. Thus, from the chronology of events and the evidences/documents furnished to the AO during the penalty proceedin seen that all the material facts relevant to computation of total income, i.e. the status of the company as resident, were furnished to the AO during the re proceedings as well as penalty proceedings. Mere change of residential status resident could not lead to a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant has offered an explanation, which was substantiated by relevant documents and the explanation offered by the appellant was bonafide, therefore, penalty could not be levied u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of change of status of appellant company from resident to non Further, the AO has been considering the status of appellant company as resident from AYs.1995 2004-05. The CIT(A) for AYs.1995 also upheld the status of the company as resident. The appellant company vide letter dated 19.07.2006 accepted the status taken by the AO and considered it as resident in India and filed the Return of inc accordingly. Thus, the appellant has been consistently filing the Return of income in the capacity of resident in M/s Oxford University Press ITA No. 5742/MUM/2024 considered the status of the appellant as resident and initiated penalty proceedings. However, the penalty proceedings were dropped by the AO. On 19.07.2006, appellant, under protest, filed a letter to the AO accepting its status as resident in India w.e.f. 1995-96. The AO has not rejected the letter filed by the appellant. For AY.2015 16, the appellant filed status of the company as resident, which was accepted by the AO in the order u/s.143(3) of the Act, however, in the order u/s.147 of the Act, the AO changed the status of the company from resident to non resident and taxed the income @ 40% instead of 30% offered by the appellant. Penalty for AY.2015-16 has been levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of residential status of the company. The appellant has submitted that during the re-assessment proceedings, the AO was informed about the letter dated 19.07.2016 that under protest, the appellant has accepted the status of the company as resident in India and filed Return of income in the capacity of resident in India. Thus, from the chronology of events and the evidences/documents furnished to the AO during the penalty proceedin seen that all the material facts relevant to computation of total income, i.e. the status of the company as resident, were furnished to the AO during the re-assessment proceedings as well as penalty proceedings. Mere change of residential status of the company from resident to non resident could not lead to a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant has offered an explanation, which was substantiated by relevant documents and the explanation offered by the appellant as bonafide, therefore, penalty could not be levied u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of change of status of appellant company from resident to non-resident. Further, the AO has been considering the status of appellant company as resident from AYs.1995 05. The CIT(A) for AYs.1995-96 and 1996 also upheld the status of the company as resident. The appellant company vide letter dated 19.07.2006 accepted the status taken by the AO and considered it as resident in India and filed the Return of inc accordingly. Thus, the appellant has been consistently filing the Return of income in the capacity of resident in M/s Oxford University Press 5 ITA No. 5742/MUM/2024 considered the status of the appellant as resident and initiated penalty proceedings. However, the penalty proceedings were dropped by the AO. On 19.07.2006, the appellant, under protest, filed a letter to the AO accepting 96. The AO has not rejected the letter filed by the appellant. For AY.2015- 16, the appellant filed status of the company as resident, epted by the AO in the order u/s.143(3) of the Act, however, in the order u/s.147 of the Act, the AO changed the status of the company from resident to non- resident and taxed the income @ 40% instead of 30% has been levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of residential status of the company. The appellant assessment proceedings, the AO was informed about the letter dated 19.07.2016 est, the appellant has accepted the status of the company as resident in India and filed Return of income in the capacity of resident in India. Thus, from the chronology of events and the evidences/documents furnished to the AO during the penalty proceedings, it is seen that all the material facts relevant to computation of total income, i.e. the status of the company as resident, assessment proceedings as well as penalty proceedings. Mere change of the company from resident to non- resident could not lead to a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant has offered an explanation, which was substantiated by relevant documents and the explanation offered by the appellant as bonafide, therefore, penalty could not be levied u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of change of status of appellant Further, the AO has been considering the status of appellant company as resident from AYs.1995-96 till 96 and 1996-97 has also upheld the status of the company as resident. The appellant company vide letter dated 19.07.2006 accepted the status taken by the AO and considered it as resident in India and filed the Return of income, accordingly. Thus, the appellant has been consistently filing the Return of income in the capacity of resident in India and the AO has been accepting that position from AYs.1995-96 onwards. For AYs.1995 CIT(A) has also upheld the s resident company. Thus, following the rule of consistency, no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is leviable. Further, the argument of the appellant that when two views are possible, then no penalty could be levied is also acceptable in t Considering the above facts, the appellant company has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of status of the company as resident. Therefore, the penalty of Rs.1,28,46,270/ is deleted. Accordingly, the ground of appeal nos. 1 to 4 are Allowed. 4. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record deleted the penalty, firstly, assessee was filing return of income in the capacity of the non resident however, the Assessing Officer turned the status into resident and thereafter the assessee started filing return in the status of resident under protest. Assessing Officer in respect of residential status CIT(A) concluded that Secondly, the issue that or non-resident has been is leviable on the debatable issue. Thirdly, before us the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s income in status of non M/s Oxford University Press ITA No. 5742/MUM/2024 India and the AO has been accepting that position from 96 onwards. For AYs.1995- 96 and 1996 CIT(A) has also upheld the status of the appellant as resident company. Thus, following the rule of consistency, no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is leviable. Further, the argument of the appellant that when two views are possible, then no penalty could be levied is also acceptable in the case of the appellant. Considering the above facts, the appellant company has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of status of the company as resident. Therefore, the penalty of Rs.1,28,46,270/- levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) Accordingly, the ground of appeal nos. 1 to 4 are Allowed. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has , firstly, for the reason that in the earlier year the assessee was filing return of income in the capacity of the non resident however, the Assessing Officer turned the status into resident and thereafter the assessee started filing return in the status of resident under protest. The assessee fully explained in respect of residential status, therefore, the ld CIT(A) concluded that no inaccurate particulars have been filed. issue that status of the assessee should be resident resident has been debated in preceding years and no penalty is leviable on the debatable issue. Thirdly, before us the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the return of income filed in notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed tatus of non-resident and paid the tax @ 40% liable to M/s Oxford University Press 6 ITA No. 5742/MUM/2024 India and the AO has been accepting that position from 96 and 1996-97, tatus of the appellant as resident company. Thus, following the rule of consistency, Further, the argument of the appellant that when two views are possible, then no penalty could be levied is also Considering the above facts, the appellant company has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of status of the company as resident. Therefore, the levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) Accordingly, the ground of appeal nos. 1 to 4 are Allowed.” We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused . We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has the earlier year the assessee was filing return of income in the capacity of the non- resident however, the Assessing Officer turned the status into resident and thereafter the assessee started filing return in the ssee fully explained to the , therefore, the ld no inaccurate particulars have been filed. status of the assessee should be resident in preceding years and no penalty is leviable on the debatable issue. Thirdly, before us the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the return of income filed in assessee filed return of resident and paid the tax @ 40% liable to non-residents and therefore there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting t penalty and we accordingly uphold the same. The grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 31/01/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// M/s Oxford University Press ITA No. 5742/MUM/2024 residents and therefore there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting t penalty and we accordingly uphold the same. The grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. nounced in the open Court on 31/01/2025. Sd/- Sd/ (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai M/s Oxford University Press 7 ITA No. 5742/MUM/2024 residents and therefore there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty and we accordingly uphold the same. The grounds of appeal In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. /01/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "