Sh. Pankaj Krishan Sehgal, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 1001/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5121 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Capital receipt; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 145; 148; 28

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1001/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SH. PANKAJ KRISHAN SEHGAL VS. THE ITO HOUSE NO. 60, SECTOR 5 WARD1(3), CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AEEPS9155G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 19/04/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/05/2017 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-1, CHANDIGARH DT. 19/08/2016, CONFIR MING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT,1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS)-I HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAS THEREBY ERRED IN SUSTAINING PENALTY U/S 271(1)( C) ON FLIMSICAL GROUNDS. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-I IS DE-VOID OF ANY MERIT AS THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED THE INTER EST ON COMPENSATION RECEIVED AS EXEMPT U/S 10(37) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IN THE RETURN FILED. THERE WAS NO FURNISHING OF ANY INACCURATE PARTICULA RS OF INCOME. 3. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT INCOME TAX RETURN (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ITR) FOR THE IMPUGNED A.Y. I.E. 2012-13 WAS FILED SHOWING AN INCOME OF RS. 14,71,560/- AND REFUND OF RS. 18,79,750/- WAS CLAIMED.DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT 2 PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,00,18,4 32/- DURING THE YEAR ,WHICH HE HAD CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ON THIS INCOME, HOWEVER, TDS HAD BEEN PARTLY DEDUCTED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON THE REMAINING AMOUNT, THE ASSESSEE PAID THE ADVANCE TAX. ON BEING ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON COMPENSATION, THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO AN ADDITION OF 50% OF THE INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION RECEIV ED AND STATED THAT ALL TAXES WERE ALREADY PAID BEFORE FILING OF R ETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 50,09,216/- STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER OFFERED THIS AMOUNT FOR TAXATION BEF ORE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) WERE STARTED AND ONLY OFFERE D THIS AMOUNT AFTER BEING SPECIFICALLY QUESTIONED ABOUT THE INCOM E CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT IN THE ITR.THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE QUANTUM ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. 3.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER IMPOSED PENAL TY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME AN D FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY WELL AWARE THAT THE INCOME WH ICH HAD BEEN CLAIMED AS EXEMPT WAS TAXABLE IN HIS HANDS SINCE IF THIS WAS NOT THE SITUATION, HE WOULD NOT HAVE PAID ADVANCE TAX ON TH AT AMOUNT.THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ADVANCE TAX ON THE INTEREST ON COMPENSATION ON ONE HAND, EVEN WHILE TR EATING THE 3 INTEREST EXEMPT AND CLAIMING REFUND ON THE OTHER HA ND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER DREW STRENGTH FROM THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 145A(B) POINTING OUT THAT IT IS EXPLICITLY MENTIONE D THAT INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION W AS TO BE CHARGED AS INCOME IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. THE ASSES SING OFFICER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE ENJOYED THE INC OME AS EXEMPT IF THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT SCRUTINIZED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT , AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,45,849/-, @ 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EV ADED ON 50% OF THE INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATED RECEIVED,. 4. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE PLEADE D THAT THE INTEREST ON COMPENSATION HAVING BEEN RECEIVED U/S 2 8 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, HAD BEEN CLAIMED AS EXEMPT UNDER S ECTION 10(37) OF THE ACT, UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KA RANVIR SINGH(303 ITR 231) AS PER WHICH THE AFORESAID INTEREST WAS IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT THE SAME WOULD NOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONT ENTION AND UPHELD THE LEVY OF PENALTY HOLDING THAT THERE WAS N O DEBATE RELATING TO TAXABILITY OF INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMP ENSATION AT THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME, THE ISSUE HAVING ATTENDED FINALITY IN VIEW OF VARIOUS JUDICIA L PRONOUNCEMENTS AND AMENDMENT IN THE ACT, WELL BEFORE THE FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) REFERRED TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GHANSHYAM(HUF) 20096 (315 ITR 1 )(SC) AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASES OF CIT 4 VS. BIR SINGH (HUF) AND FURTHER TO THE AMENDMENT MA DE IN SECTION 45(5)(B) SECTION 56(1)(VIII) AND SECTION 145A(B) FO R THIS PURPOSE. THEREAFTER RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ZOOM COMMUNICATION(P) LTD. 3 27 ITR 510, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE PENALTY LEVIED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US LD.COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES AND STATED THAT ALL PARTICULARS RELATING TO THE INT EREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR HAD BEEN DISC LOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT THE SAME WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(37) IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA ). LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. RAMESHWAR GIRI IN ITA NO. 1344/CHD/2012 DT. 11/06/2013 AND POINTED OUT THAT T HE ITAT IN THE SAID CASE HAD HELD THAT SINCE THE AO DID NOT BIFURC ATE WHICH PART OF INTEREST WAS UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITI ON ACT AND WHICH PART WAS TAXABLE THEREFORE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN THE ISSUE WAS DEBATABLE. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS IDENTICAL TO THAT IN RAMESHWAR GIRI (SUPRA) AND THE ISSUE WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE S AID DECISION. 6. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT AT THE POINT OF TIME OF FILI NG OF RETURN OF INCOME I.E; ON 31/07/2012, THERE WAS NO DEBATE REGA RDING THE TAXABILITY OF INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION WHI CH HAD TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISION OF SECTIO N 145A(B), 56(VIII) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. LD. DR FURTHER STATED T HAT THE ASSESSEE 5 HAD HIMSELF AGREED THAT THE INTEREST WAS TAXABLE UN DER SECTION 56(VIII) DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND OFFE RED THE SAME TO TAX, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITS ELF. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RAISED ANOTHER ARGU MENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT PENALTY WAS NOT LEVI ABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE STATING THAT IN IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES PENALT Y INITIATED IN THE CASE OF THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE I.E; SMT. ANJANA SEHGAL, FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E; 2012-13 WAS DROPPED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF IDENTICAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN THIS REGARD PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. 8. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND COUNTERED BY SAYING THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE AO DID NOT LEVY PENALTY IN THE ASSESSE ES MOTHERS CASE, WAS NO REASON FOR DELETING PENALTY IN THE ASS ESSEES CASE ALSO AND THE ISSUE WAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF LAW . LD. DR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN ANY CASE THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES MOTHER SMT. ANJANA SEHGAL WERE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE ASSESSEES CASE. LD DR POINTED OUT THAT IN THE CASE OF SMT. AN JANA SEHGAL,THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, THE RETURN HAD BEEN REVISED BY HER INCLUDING THE INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION IN THE REVISE D RETURN, WHILE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE SAME HAD BEEN OFFER ED TO TAX ONLY AFTER BEING CORNERED BY THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDING. TO THIS LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COUNTERED BY STAT ING THAT EVEN IN THE CASE OF SMT. ANJANA SEHGAL NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED FOR REOPENING AND THEREAFTER IN THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE SAID INCOME HAD BEEN DISCLOSED AND THU S THE 6 CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE DISCLOSURE OF INCOME I N THE TWO CASES WAS IDENTICAL 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PER USED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. 10. THE SOLE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS RELATING TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON INTEREST ON E NHANCED COMPENSATION RECEIVED WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT PARTICULARS OF THE SAID IN COME WERE DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30 /07/2012 AND THAT TAXES HAD ALSO BEEN PAID ON THE SAME CLAIMING THE S AME AS EXEMPT U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT.IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THA T THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE SAME TO TAX ONLY WHEN CONFRONTED BY THE AO. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THERE WAS NO DEBA TE ABOUT THE TAXABILITY OF THE SAID INCOME IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 A(B) AND 56(VIII) OF THE ACT,AND THE AS SESSEE HAVING OFFERED THE SAME TO TAX ONLY WHEN CONFRONTED BY THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ,PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS L EVIABLE. THE SOLE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE IN DEFENCE IS THAT ALL PARTICULARS RELATING TO THE SAID INCOME HA D BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND HAD BEEN CLAIMED AS EXEMPT UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF BORROWED FROM THE DECISION OF THE A PEX COURT IN GHANSHYAM (HUF). THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR HARBORING SUCH BELIEF WAS THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE, THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF)(SUPRA) HAD BEE N RENDERED AND WHICH STATED THAT INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSA TION RECEIVED 7 UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT WAS TO BE TREATED AS PART OF COMPENSATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED TH AT IT HAD RECEIVED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQU ISITION ACT AND FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF HONBLE APEX CO URT HAD TREATED IT AS PART OF COMPENSATION, WHICH UNDISPUTEDLY WAS EXEMPT AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 10(37) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT, UNDOUBTEDLY PARTICULARS RELATING TO T HE IMPUGNED INCOME HAD BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. WHAT HAS TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER NOT INCLUDING THE SAME IN THE INCO ME BY CLAIMING THE SAME AS EXEMPT U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT, COULD BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF. 11. WE ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTIO N OF THE LD. DR THAT THE APPLICABLE PROVISION FOR BRINGING TO TA X INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT Y EAR I.E; 2012-13 WAS SECTION 145A(B), 56(VIII) & 57(IV) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT. THE RELEVANT PROVISION ARE BEING REPRODUCED HERE UN DER: SECTION 145 A. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONT RARY CONTAINED IN SECTION 145,- (A)... (I).. (II).. (B) INTEREST RECEIVED BY AN ASSESSEE ON COMPENSATIO N OR ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS RECEIVED. INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 56 (1) INCOME OF EVERY KIND WHICH IS NOT TO BE EXCL UDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, IF IT I S NOT CHARGEABLE 8 TO INCOME-TAX UNDER ANY OF THE HEADS SPECIFIED IN S ECTION 14, ITEMS A TO E. (2) IN PARTICULAR, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GEN ERALITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1), THE FOLLOWING INCOME S, SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES, NAMELY:- (I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI) (VII).. SECTION 56 (VIII) INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST RECEIV ED ON COMPENSATION OR ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION REFERRED T O IN CLAUSE(B) OF SECTION 145A SECTION 57. THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES SHALL BE COMPUTED AFTER MAKING THE F OLLOWING DEDUCTIONS, NAMELY:- (I).. [(IA).. (II).. [(IIA).. (III). [(IV) IN THE CASE OF INCOME OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (VIII) OF SUB-SECTION(2) OF SECTION 56, A DEDUCTION OF A S UM EQUAL TO FIFTY PER CENT OF SUCH INCOME AND NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE A LLOWED UNDER ANY OTHER CLAUSE OF THIS SECTION.] CLEARLY, AS PER THE SAID PROVISIONS, INTEREST ON EN HANCED COMPENSATION IS TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT @50% OF THE SAME. BUT HAVING SAID SO, THERE IS NO DENYING THE F ACT THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E; ON 30/07/2012 THERE WAS THE JU DGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN CIT VS. GHANSHYAM(HUF) 315 IT R 1 DT. 16/07/2009, WHEREIN THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAD AFTE R GOING THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1854,CA TEGORICALLY STATED 9 THAT INTEREST RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT WAS TO BE TREATED AS PART OF COMPENSATION AND TAXED ACCORDINGLY AS CAPITAL GAIN, WHILE INTEREST RECEIVED UNDER SECT ION 34 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, WAS IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE RECE IPT AND WAS TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. NOW CONSIDERING THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT , WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME SINCE THE INTEREST RE CEIVED BY IT PERTAINED TO SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT , AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ALL ALONG AND NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVE NUE, HE WAS OF THE BELIEF THAT THE INTEREST WAS A CAPITAL RECEIPT TO BE TREATED AS COMPENSATION. THOUGH SECTION 145A(B) AND SECTION 56 (VIII) DO CATEGORICALLY STATE THAT INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPE NSATION IS TO BE TAXED ON RECEIPT BUT THE SAID SECTIONS DO NOT CLARI FY THAT INTEREST FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SAID SECTIONS INCLUDES INTERES T UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT ALONGWITH INTEREST U NDER SECTION 34 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, WE HOLD, HAD UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF TREATED THE INTEREST ON ENH ANCED COMPENSATION AS BEING IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION , AND THUS EXEMPT U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT. THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE,WE FIND, CANNOT THEREFORE BE SAID TO BE FALSE. FOR THE SAME REASON WE ARE ALSO NOT IN AGREEMENT WI TH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION HAD ATTAINED FINALITY. THE LD . CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN GHANS HYAM (HUF)(SUPRA) FOR ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION. BUT A S STATED ABOVE THE SAID JUDGMENT LEAVES CERTAIN OPEN ENDS ON THE ISSUE BY TERMING ONLY 10 A PART OF THE IT AS BEING IN THE NATURE OF INTEREST WHILE HOLDING THE REST AS BEING IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION. THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF BIR SINGH (HUF) WHICH WAS RENDERED BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT . THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM(HUF) BEI NG THAT OF THE APEX COURT, THE SAME WOULD PREVAIL OVER THE DECISIO N OF THE HIGH COURT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, WE HOLD, CORRECTLY RELI ED UPON IT TO FORM A BELIEF THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED WAS NOT TAXABLE . THUS CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING DISCLOSED ALL PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME PERT AINING TO INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND HAVING CLAIMED THE SA ME AS EXEMPT UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF, WE HOLD THAT THE AS SESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APE X COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P.)LTD. [2010] 322 ITR 158 WHICH STATES THAT MERELY MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW WOULD NOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHEN ADMITTEDLY INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS NOT F OUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE. FURTHER IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FALSE AND THEREFORE THE DECISION O F THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ZOOM COMMUNICATION (SUPRA) WOU LD NOT APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE DELETE THE PENALTY LEVI ED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,47,547/-. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER DATED : AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR