|COURT:||Delhi High Court|
|CORAM:||S. Muralidhar J, Vibhu Bakhru J|
|CATCH WORDS:||concealment of income, furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, penalty|
|DATE:||August 24, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||September 1, 2015 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|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|
The Court finds that in the present case the order of the CIT (A) explaining why Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case merits no interference. The issue that arose for determination in the quantum appeal does appear to have been debatable as is evident from the above narration of facts. There was a reference made by the Assessee itself in the note of computation, that pursuant to the settlement agreement with Schneider, it had received compensation “in lieu of giving up their right under Press Note 18, which debarred the collaborator from carrying out business in India, without the permission of JV partners”. The compensation was also “in lieu of agreeing not to use the name after an interim period i.e. to give up the benefit over a period of time of being known in the market as a joint venture partner of TE”. Secondly, the Assessee armed itself with 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.