HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Penalty for concealment of income. Evidecne led by the assessee not malafide or false. Tribunal concurred with the finding of the lower authorities. on Appeal, order of the Tribunal upheld.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-V
Regency Express Builders (P.) Ltd.
IT APPEAL NO. 917 OF 2007 DECIDED ON 4-10- 2007
1. In this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) the revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 19-1-2007 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), Delhi Bench “H”, New Delhi in ITA No. 4363/Delhi/2005 relevant for the assessment year 2000-01.
2. The only controversy in this case is whether the Assessing Officer had recorded his satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings against the assessee under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3. We have gone through the assessment order with the assistance of the learned counsel for the revenue. There is nothing at all to suggest that the Assessing Officer was satisfied that the assessee had in any way either concealed the particulars of its income or had furnished inaccurate particulars or had deliberately failed to comply with any notice or direction issued by the Assessing Officer. We may note that the penalty order has been passed subsequently by the Assessing Officer only under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
4. Even on merits we have gone through the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] as well as the Tribunal. The Tribunal had followed the order of the CIT(A). We find that the CIT(A) had looked into the question whether the rental income received by the assessee is required to be assessed under the head ‘Income from house property’ or under the head ‘Business income’ as claimed by the assessee. The CIT(A) held that two views are possible in this regard and since there is no clear and definite inference that can be drawn one way or the other, it could not be said that the assessee had concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars. It was held that the evidence led by the assessee could not be said to be mala fide or false. The Tribunal has concurred with this finding.
5. On examining the orders of the authorities on merits, we are not persuaded to come to a different conclusion. No grounds have been made out for interfering with the concurrent orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.
No substantial question of law arises.