Raminder Singh Bedi, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

Deputy CIT vs. Raminder Singh Bedi, Circle 48(1), AG-61, Nirvana Country, New Delhi. Sector-60, Gurgaon (Hr.) (PAN: AHOPB3502B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by: Shri Vikram Sahai, Sr. DR Respondent by: Shri K.C. Singhal, Adv.

Date of hearing : 22.12.2014 Date of pronouncement: :02.2015

ORDER

PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER The Revenue has questioned first appellate order whereby the Learned

CIT(Appeals) has deleted the penalty of Rs.5,48,690 levied under sec.

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on several grounds.

2. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view

of orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the

decisions relied upon.

2

3. Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, we find that

the assessee was able to show bona fide reason for not showing the income

earned on the sale of shares and the equity ESOP in its return of income filed

for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee had sold 4500

numbers of equity ESOP and 1272 numbers of other shares. Necessary

details in this regard showing capital gain amounting to Rs.16,02,644 was

submitted. The said facts have been duly reported in the assessment order

under para 5. The assessee submitted that he discussed with some

consultants about the transaction on the basis of which he was of the bona

fide opinion that shares were listed in USA and also sold in USA on which

necessary tax had been paid to US Government accordingly same capital

gain is not liable to tax in India again. The assessee also filed truly the

information about sale of ESOP without hiding. It is also worth noting that

the revenue had the information only about the gain arising on the sale of

shares for Rs.8,12,080 whereas the assessee being a honest tax payers

furnished the information for capital gain for Rs.16,02,644. This fact has

been duly recorded in the assessment order. Keeping all the above aspects in

mind, we are of the view that the Learned CIT(Appeals) had righty deleted

the penalty on the basis that there was bona fide mistake on the part of the

assessee which cannot be termed as concealment of income or furnishing 3

inaccurate particulars thereof to attract penal provisions under sec. 271(1)(c)

of the Act. For a ready reference, para No.4 of the First Appellate Order is

being reproduced:

"4. I have perused the penalty order, grounds of appeal, written submissions and discussed the matter with the AR of the appellant very carefully. During the year under consideration the appellant got some ESOP and other shares from the employer group company, listed in USA, which was sold in USA. Necessary US tax return relating to that income was filed in USA. The appellant was under the bona fide belief that share was listed in USA and applicable US Tax had been deposited so the same income is not leviable in India. Since it is a bona fide mistake by the appellant and he has not concealed any income or furnished any inaccurate particulars of his income, the penalty imposed by the A.O. u/s. 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted."

4. In view of above discussion, we find that there is no infirmity in the

First Appellate Order on the issue of deletion of the penalty in question. The

same is upheld. The related grounds are accordingly rejected.

5. In result, the appeal is dismissed.

Decision pronounced in the open court on .02.2015

( N.K. SAINI ) ( I.C. SUDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: /02/2015 Mohan Lal 4

Copy forwarded to:

1) Appellant

2) Respondent

3) CIT

4) CIT(Appeals)

5) DR:ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR