SUNANDA V AGARWAL, MUMBAI V. ITO 21(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 5834/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2409 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VISHWAS JADHAV
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY KOTHARI
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Cost of acquisition; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 27; 154

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.5834 /MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) MRS. SUNANDA V. AGARWALA, DAMINI, FLAT NO. 301, 3 RD FLOOR, JUHU TARA ROAD, JUHU, VILE PARLE (WEST), MUMBAI 400 049. / V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 21(2)(4), C-10, 5 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI 400 051. ./ PAN : ABLPA9852A ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI VIJAY KOTHARI REVENUE BY : SHRI VISHWAS JADHAV (D.R.) / DATE OF HEARING : 03-08-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-10-2016 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING ITA NO. 5834/MUM/2013, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28 TH AUGUST, 2013 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 32, M UMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT(A)), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10, THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF PENALTY DATED 29 TH MAY. 2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AO) U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). ITA 5834/MUM/2013 2 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBA I (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL) READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271 (1)(C) OF RS. 81,030/- AND WHILE D OING SO HE AMONGST OTHERS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT: A. THE APPELLANT HAD NEITHER CONCEALED THE PARTICUL ARS OF HIS INCOME NOR HAD HE FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME; B. THE DETAILS AND PARTICULARS OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS EARNED ON THE TRANSFER OF SHARES OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. WA S ENTIRELY DISCLOSED; C. THE APPELLANT WAS UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE G AIN ARISING ON TRANSFER OF SHARES OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. WAS EX EMPT U/S. 10(38) OF THE ACT. D. MERELY BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAD INADVERTENTLY COM MITTED AN ERROR IN CLAIMING EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF SHARES OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD., IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE APPELL ANT HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAD FURNISHED INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE ASSESSEE HAS , INTER-ALIA, DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.3,95,769/- ARISING OUT OF SALE OF 537 SHARES OF M/S. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. SOLD FOR A TOTAL CON SIDERATION OF RS.3,95,769/- AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(38) OF T HE ACT. THE SALE WAS EFFECTED ON BUYBACK OPTION AND STT WAS NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE , AND IN VIEW OF THIS THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 3,95 ,769/- WAS NOT ALLOWED TO BE EXEMPTED BY THE AO AND TAXED ACCORDINGLY . PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND NOTICE U/S. 274 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO TH E ASSESSEE BY THE AO , BUT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O. NOR A NY EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED ITA 5834/MUM/2013 3 BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO IN PENALTY PROCEEDING S U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 274 OF THE ACT. THE A.O. ACCORDIN GLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY EXPLANATION TO O FFER W.R.T. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 274 OF THE ACT AND HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHEREBY SHE HAD CONCEALED HER TRUE INCOME IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME FILED WITH THE REVENUE. THE A.O. HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS W RONGLY CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF RS. 3,95,769/- U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME FILED WITH THE REVENUE , WHEREBY EXEMPTION FROM TAX U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED WITH RESPECT TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF SHARES ON WHICH STT WAS NOT PAID AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR PENA LTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND TAKING A LENIENT VIEW, THE A.O. LEVIED MINIMUM PENALTY @ 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED OF RS. 81,030/-, VIDE ORDER OF PENALTY DATED 29.05.2012 PASSED U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT BY THE AO. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 29.05.2012 PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED HER FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT WAS FILED BEFORE THE A.O. WHEREIN IT WAS CONTENDED THAT AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 112(1) OF THE ACT CAPITAL GAINS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX @ 10% AS AGAINST TAX CHARGED @ 20% BY THE A.O. AND FURTHER THE A.O. HAS NOT CONSID ERED THE COST OF ACQUISITION IN RESPECT OF SUCH 537 SHARES OF RANBAX Y LABORATORIES LIMITED WHOSE SALE WAS EFFECTED UNDER BUYBACK OPTION AND TH E STT WAS NOT PAID. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL DECISIONS :- - M/S DORAL TRADING PVT. LTD. V. DCIT ITA NO. 628 0/MUM/2011. - ASIA ATTRACTIVE DIVIDEND STOCK FUND V. DDIT (IT) ITA NO. 3908/MUM/2012. ITA 5834/MUM/2013 4 - ACIT V. AMIT BAJAJ ITA NO. 7707/MUM/2010. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS MAY BE DROPPED OR TO REDUCE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF COMPUTATIONAL ERROR IN APPLYING HIGHER TAX RATE OF 20% INSTEAD OF 10% AS ALSO NOT PROVIDING DEDUCTION OF COST OF ACQUISITION OF SHARES WHILE CA LCULATING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS , IN WORKING OUT THE PENALTY. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE AS SESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON S ALE OF 537 SHARES OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. WHEREIN TOTAL SALE CONSID ERATION WAS RS. 3,95,769/- WHICH WAS SOLD UNDER AN BUYBACK OPTION AND STT WAS NOT PAID ON THE SAME BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE LONG TERM C APITAL GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXEMPT U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE PRESENT ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF ASIA MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD. DECIDED ON 13 TH APRIL, 2011 AND NOT BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DORAL TRADING PVT. LTD. (SU PRA) AND ASIA ATTRACTIVE DIVIDEND STOCK FUND V. DDIT(SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITA L GAIN EARNED BY HER AS EXEMPT U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT UNDER BUYBACK OPTION AND AS THERE WAS NO STT PAID ON SUCH TRANSACTION, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNIS HED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY CLAIMING THE LONG TERM CA PITAL GAINS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF SHARES UNDER BUYBACK SCHEME ON WHICH STT WAS NOT PAID AS EXEMPT U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE EXPLANATION 1 OF SECTION 271(1((C) OF THE ACT AND THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED VIDE A PPELLATE ORDERS DATED 28.08.2013. ITA 5834/MUM/2013 5 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28.08.201 3 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 537 SHARES OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. FOR A TOTAL SALE CONSIDER ATION OF RS. 3,95,769/- WHICH WAS HELD FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR. SALE PROCEE DS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE BUYBACK SCHEME WHEREBY NO STT WA S PAID. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS AN INADVERTENT MISTAK E AND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT AND DECLARED THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS NOT EXE MPT FROM TAX U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT. DUE TAXES ALONG WITH APPLICABLE INTEREST HAVE BEEN PAID. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE RATE OF TAXATION IS 10% AND NOT 20% AS CHARGED BY THE AO . WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T THE PENALTY LEVIED SHOULD BE REDUCED. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS RELIED ON THE FOLL OWING DECISIONS:- 1. DORAL TRADING PVT. LTD. V DCIT (ITA 6280/M/2011) DATED 26.2.2013: 2. VIRTUOUS CAPITAL LIMITED V ACIT (ITA 5647/M/2013 ) DATED 19.11.2015: 3. ASIA ATTRACTIVE DIVIDEND STOCK FUND V DDI (INTER NATIONAL TAX) (ITA 3908/M/2012) DATED 28.9.2012: 4. SHRI VIKRAMADITYA SINGH V DCIT (ITA 188/ASR/2014 ) DATED 16.11.2015: 5. ACIT V AMIT BAJAJ (ITA 7707/M/2010) DATED 3.8.20 12: 6. ASIA MANAGEMENT & CONSULTANCY PVT: LTD. V ACIT ( ITA 1916/M/2010) DATED 13.4.2011: 7. PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS P. LTD. V CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) 8. CIT V RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS 322 ITR 158 (SC). THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE CASE LAWS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE AS THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL. ITA 5834/MUM/2013 6 6. THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) AND ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA & ORS V. DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS & ORS, (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) , MAK DAT A PRIVATE LIMITED V. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593(SC) AND CIT V. ZOOM COMMUNICATIO N PRIVATE LIMITED (2010) 327 ITR 510(DEL. HC) . 7. IN THE REJOINDER, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VIRTUOUS CAPITAL LIMITED V. ACIT IN ITA NO. 5647 /MUM/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 VIDE ORDERS DATED 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE CASE LAWS REFERRED BY THE LD. D. R. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALS O PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE PARTIES. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 537 SHARES OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. UNDER BUYBACK SCHEME WHEREBY NO STT WAS PAID. THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN EARNED ON SUCH TRANSACTION OF SALE OF SHARES O F RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED UNDER BUYBACK SCHEME WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS NO STT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BUT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE WITH THE REVENUE , THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE SAID LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAINS EARNED BY HER TO BE EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT. ON BEING ASKED, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS AN INADVERTENT AND BO NA-FIDE MISTAKE TAKEN PLACE WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WITH THE RE VENUE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS EARNED ON SALE OF 537 SHARES OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMIT ED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH THE REVENUE WHEREIN COMPLETE PARTICULARS WERE FURNISHED BUT UNDER A BONA-FIDE BELIEF DUE TO INADVERTENT MISTAKE CLAIM ED EXEMPTION OF SAID LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS EARNED BY ASSESSEE U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO STATED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW THE SAID CLAIM ON COMING TO KNOW OF THE INADVERTENT MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURIN G ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON SEVERAL CAS E LAWS AS STATED IN ITA 5834/MUM/2013 7 PRECEDING PARAS AND WE FIND THAT THE CASE LAW IN T HE CASE OF DORAL TRADING PVT. LTD. V DCIT (ITA 6280/M/2011) DATED 26.2.2013 WHEREBY RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASIA ATTRACTIVE DIVIDEND STOCK FUND V. DDIT IN ITA NO. 3908/MUM/2012 WHEREIN THE FACTS WERE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO 39 08/MUM/2012 WHICH DECISION OF ASIA ATTRACTIVE DIVIDEND STOCK FUND (SU PRA) WAS APPROVED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN (2013) 35 TAXMANN.COM 265(BOM.) IN DIT V. ASIA ATTRACTIVE DIVIDEND STOCK FUND, AND ALSO DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF VIRTUOUS CAPITAL LIMITED V ACIT (ITA 5647/M/2013) V IDE ORDERS DATED 19.11.2015 ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO 5647/MUM/2013 HAS DULY CONSIDERED THE VARIOU S CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY LEARNED DR . THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT V. ASIA ATTRACTIVE DIVIDEND STOCK FUND (2013) 35 TAXMA NN.COM 265(BOM.) HELD AS UNDER: 2. IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, ALTHOUGH SEVERAL QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN FORMULATED IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL, THE BASIC DISPUTE IS WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN DE LETING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 LEVIED UPON THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE HAD ORIGINALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMING A REFUND OF RS. 4.32 CRORES. THIS WAS ON T HE BASIS OF COMPUTING ITS TAX PAYABLE ON THE SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT T HE RATE OF 10% UNDER SECTION 111A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('ACT' FOR SHORT). HOWEVER, THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE ON ITS OWN REALIZED ITS MISTA KE IN CLAIMING REFUND AND BY A LETTER DATED 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 BROUGHT IT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE POINTE D THAT THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE CAPITAL GAINS WAS AT THE RATE OF 30% AT WHIC H RATE EVEN THE ADVANCE TAX HAD BEEN PAID. CONSEQUENT THERETO, THE RESPONDENT - ITA 5834/MUM/2013 8 ASSESSEE FILED REVISED COMPUTATION ON THE BASIS OF TAX BEING PAYABLE AT THE RATE OF 30%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED TH E ASSESSMENT WITHOUT GRANTING THE CLAIM FOR REFUND. HOWEVER, PENALTY UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED UPON THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVYING PENALTY. 4. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE PENALTY AS IT FOUND THAT THIS WAS A CASE OF BONA FIDE CLERICAL ERROR WHILE C OMPUTING THE TAX LIABILITY IN THE PROCESS OF FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME. HOWE VER, AS THE SAME WAS RECTIFIED BY THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE ON ITS OWN B EFORE THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED, PENALTY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE FACT OF THE CLERICAL ERROR WAS ALSO FORTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT THE ADVANCE TAX HAD BEEN PAID BY THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE AT THE RATE OF 30% AND NOT AT THE RATE OF 10%. 5. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS BASED ON FINDING OF FACT, WE SEE NO REASON TO ENTERTAIN THE PRESENT APP EAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW BASED ON ABOVE DETAILED REAS ONING AND DISCUSSIONS, IT IS AN INADVERTENT AND BONAFIDE MISTAKE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME WITH THE REVENUE WHEREIN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES UNDER BUYBACK SCHEME WHEREIN NO STT WAS PAID WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S. 10(38) OF THE ACT, AND THE ASSESSEE EXP LANATION OFFERED THERETO IS A BONA-FIDE WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED IT TO BE I NADVERTENT AND BONAFIDE MISTAKE WAS UNDER AN IMPRESSION THAT LONG TERM CAPI TAL GAINS EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES IS EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT ALBEIT NO STT WAS PAID , WHILE COMPLETE PARTICULARS WERE FILED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH THE REVENUE CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES. IT IS AN INADVERTENT BON A-FIDE MISTAKE AND AS SUCH ITA 5834/MUM/2013 9 THE PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW AN D THE SAME IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DELETED AS THE ASSESSEE HAS COME FORW ARD WITH AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS A BONA-FIDE EXPLANATION WHICH TAKES IT OUT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. MERELY BECAUSE A CLAIM IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NO T ACCEPTED BY THE AO TO BE SUSTAINABLE IN LAW PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE AUTOM ATICALLY MORE SO WHEN ALL THE DETAILS WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH THE REVENUE AND THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT INACCURATE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY PLACED RELIANC E ON DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE PETROP RODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) AND DECISION OF HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED(SUPRA). HE NCE, IN VIEW OF OUR FOREGOING DETAILED DISCUSSIONS AND REASONING, WE OR DER DELETION OF PENALTY OF RS.81,030/- LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO U/S 27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS SUSTAINED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE FIRST APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IMPOSING PENALTY ON THE AS SESSEE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NO. 5834/MUM/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH OCTOBER, 2016. # $% &' 24-10-2016 ( ) SD/- SD/- (C.N. PRASAD) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ MUMBAI ; & DATED 24-10-2016 [ .9../ R.K. R.K. R.K. R.K. , EX. SR. PS ITA 5834/MUM/2013 10 !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. : / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. =>( 99?@ , ?@ , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI E BENCH 6. (BC / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, = 9 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI