Four Imp Verdicts On S. 271(1)(c) Penalty, Scope Of Search Assessments Etc

CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (Delhi High Court)

S. 153A/ 153C: Entire law on the scope of additions that can be made in a pending assessment and in a completed assessment pursuant to a search u/s 132 explained
Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment
 

Pr. CIT vs. Control And Switchgear Ltd (Delhi High Court)

S. 271(1)(c): Claim that compensation received from foreign party is a capital receipt, though wrong on merits, does not attract penalty if assessee disclosed facts in ROI and was supported by a legal opinion
These facts are sufficient to distinguish the present case from the facts in CIT Delhi v. Zoom Communication 327 ITR 510 (Del) where the Court observed that apart from a making wrong claim, the Assessee did so not on the basis of any advice given to it by an auditor or tax expert. Even in MAK Data P. Ltd. v. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC), the Supreme Court held on facts that the Assessee there had no intention to declare its true income and no explanation was offered by it for the concealment of income. In the facts of the present case, the Court is satisfied that no error of law was committed either by the CIT (A) or the ITAT in holding that Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not attracted. This was not a case of an Assessee furnishing inaccurate particulars
 

Simran Singh Gambhir vs. DDIT (ITAT Delhi)

S. 271(1)(c): Offering interest on maturity on Bonds as “long-term capital gains” instead of as “income from other sources” is a mere change in the head of income and a case of bona fide mistake which does not attract penalty
The interest of all the three years was offered to tax in the year of maturity and not year-wise. This is just change in the head of income under which the income is offered to tax. The taxation of the receipt is changed to the head of income ‘other sources’ from the head of income ‘capital gain’. The explanation filed by the assessee is bona fide. This is a case of a bona fide mistake on part of the assessee
 

CIT vs. Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court)

S. 253/ Rule 27: While the Tribunal can examine all questions which relate to the subject matter of an appeal but, once an issue has attained finality and is not a subject matter of the dispute before the Tribunal, it would not be open for the Tribunal to reopen the issue on the pretext of examining a question of law
Indisputably, the Revenue could also not take recourse to Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. By virtue of the said Rule, a respondent before the Tribunal can support the decision appealed against not only on the grounds decided in favour of the respondent but also on grounds decided against it. However, Rule 27 of the said Rules would not extend to permitting the respondent to expand the scope of an appeal and assail the decision on issues, which are not subject matter of the appeal